| People v McClary |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04031 [107 AD3d 744] |
| June 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Letavious McClary, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff and StevenBender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Hubert, J.), rendered October 13, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substancein the seventh degree, criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and falsepersonation, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish the chain of custody of certain drugs after theywere recovered and vouchered into police custody. The testimony of the police witnessesprovided " 'reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition' of theevidence" (People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 343 [1977], quoting Amaro v Cityof New York, 40 NY2d 30, 35 [1976]).
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant'srequest for an expanded charge on identification. The County Court's charge onidentification was sufficient because the jury, hearing the whole charge, " 'would gatherfrom its language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at decision' " (People v Drake, 7 NY3d28, 34 [2006], quoting People v Russell, 266 NY 147, 153 [1934]).
Since the defendant failed to request a limiting instruction in connection with theadmission into evidence of $600 in cash recovered from him upon his arrest, hiscontention that the County Court erred in failing to give such a limiting instruction isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reachthe issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Angiolillo, J.P., Chambers,Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.