Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly determined that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant on March 16, 1993. An officer experienced in narcotics investigations observed the defendant had what appeared to be square, one-inch, plastic, ziplock bags — the "hallmark" of a drug transaction ( see, People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 605) — to a second individual in exchange for what appeared to be U.S. currency of an unknown denomination. The transaction occurred at night in an area known for narcotics-related activity. Following the transaction, the second individual was apprehended and four small ziplock bags containing what appeared to be crack cocaine were recovered. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the hearing court properly determined that the officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant was engaged in an illegal drug transaction ( see, People v. McRay, supra; People v. Montano, 207 A.D.2d 913; People v Malsh, 188 A.D.2d 686; People v. Robinson, 133 A.D.2d 473; see also, People v. Randolph, 157 A.D.2d 866).
The People adequately established chain of custody of the crack cocaine admitted into evidence. The testimony of the police officers who handled the evidence and the forensic chemist who tested and examined the evidence provided reasonable assurances of its identity and unchanged condition ( see, People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340; People v. Martin, 203 A.D.2d 592; People v. Ciro, 195 A.D.2d 568). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the inconsistencies in the evidence relating to chain of custody affects the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility ( see, People v. Rivera, 213 A.D.2d 281; People v. Brathwaite, 204 A.D.2d 733; People v. McLaurin, 196 A.D.2d 511; People v. Stephens, 189 A.D.2d 837).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.