Opinion
November 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.).
Even if the court, in these circumstances, should not have permitted expert testimony relating to the issue of defendant's intent to sell, such ruling was harmless because there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted him. Defendant was observed showing glassines to a woman who did not purchase them because she was interested in buying "works", and defendant possessed over 20 glassines of two different "brands" of heroin separately packaged, which constituted strong evidence that he possessed the drugs with intent to sell ( see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.