| People v De La Cruz |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07367 [44 AD3d 346] |
| October 4, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LuisDe La Cruz, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Marc Krupnick of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., at hearing; Ronald A.Zweibel, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered January 17, 2001, as amended April 15, 2005,convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first and second degrees,and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years and 6 years tolife, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The showup identification by anexperienced undercover officer, who had familiarized himself with defendant's appearance overthe course of an investigation, was not unduly suggestive even though it occurred nearly threemonths after the last drug transaction between them (see People v Quinones, 292 AD2d239 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 701 [2002]; People v Pipersburg, 273 AD2d 77[2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 892 [2000]). The officer had observed defendant at closerange in good lighting for prolonged periods, had conversed with him, and knew him by his streetname.
Giving deference to the trial court's ability to observe demeanor, we conclude that it properlygranted the prosecutor's challenge for cause to a prospective juror, since the panelist lacked theability to evaluate police testimony fairly and impartially. Although the prospective juror statedthat he could be fair, his assurances were invariably qualified by references to his predispositions;under the circumstances, it was best to disqualify him (see People v Oliveri, 29 AD3d 330, 331 [2006], lv denied 7NY3d 792 [2006]).
Evidence of an uncharged crime evidence was properly admitted to explain how theundercover officer knew to page defendant for a later drug transaction and to assist the jury inunderstanding the relationship between defendant, who was charged with acting in concert, andhis accomplices (see People vAllende, 38 AD3d 470, 471-472 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 839 [2007]; People v Alicea, 33 AD3d 326,327 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 923 [2006]). Defendant's claim with regard to the court'sfailure to give a promised limiting instruction is unpreserved and we decline to review it in theinterest of justice (see People v Baro, 236 AD2d 307 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d1032 [1997]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.