| People v Alexander |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01197 [48 AD3d 1225] |
| February 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AnthonyAlexander, Appellant. |
—[*1] Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (David E. Gann of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April19, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe third degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, oftwo counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16[1]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the conviction is supported by legally sufficientevidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Viewed in thelight most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), theevidence at trial "could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that the elements of the crime hadbeen proven beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Cabey, 85 NY2d 417, 420 [1995];see People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926 [1994]). Defendant failed to preserve for ourreview his contention that the People failed to establish an adequate chain of custody with respectto the cocaine inasmuch as he did not object to its admission in evidence (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Drayton, 270 AD2d 826 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 834[2000]). In any event, " '[t]he testimony presented at the trial sufficiently established theauthenticity of that evidence through reasonable assurances of identity and unchanged condition'" (People v Washington, 39 AD3d1228, 1230 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 870 [2007]; see People v Julian, 41NY2d 340, 343 [1977]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the verdict is not against theweight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court'sSandoval ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion (see People v Robles, 38 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2007], lvdenied 8 NY3d 990 [2007]). In any event, we reject the contention of defendant that thecourt abused its discretion in permitting the People to cross-examine him with respect to certainof his prior convictions (see People vAlston, 27 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 892 [2006]). Thoseconvictions demonstrated the willingness of defendant "to further [his] self-interest at the [*2]expense of society or in derogation of the interests of others"(People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 377 [1974]), and the record establishes that the courtproperly "weighed appropriate concerns and limited both the number of convictions and thescope of permissible cross-examination" (People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002]).Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche,Centra, Fahey and Gorski, JJ.