Opinion
December 22, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the court's credibility determinations.
The money recovered from defendant upon his arrest was properly admitted into evidence since he and his codefendant were charged with acting in concert to possess cocaine with intent to sell ( People v. Santiago, 242 A.D.2d 462, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 897; People v. Brooks, 234 A.D.2d 149, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1009). The money was also admissible to corroborate the officer's testimony that defendant received money from the buyers during the drug transactions ( People v. Perez, 185 A.D.2d 147, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 976; People v. Sanchez, 181 A.D.2d 499, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1054).
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim would require a CPL 440.10 motion, since this claim is based on facts dehors the record and counsel has had no opportunity to explain his strategy ( People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998). Based on the existing record, defendant received meaningful representation ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We have reviewed and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.