Opinion
June 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.).
Defendant's claim that the People failed to elicit sufficient evidence to establish that defendant knew that he possessed four or more ounces of a substance containing a narcotic drug at the time of his arrest ( People v. Ryan, 82 N.Y.2d 497) was not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law by defendant's general motion for a trial order of dismissal ( People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 11), and we decline to review the issue in the interest of justice.
Defendant did not object to the introduction of police testimony concerning the common methods of packaging narcotics in the area in which defendant was arrested and thus did not preserve his current claim of error (CPL 470.05). Had that claim been preserved, defendant was not prejudiced by the introduction of this limited background testimony as it provided an understanding of the officers' behavior and was probative of their reliability, which was a contested issue ( People v Almodovar, 178 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 943).
We do agree, however, that under the particular circumstances presented herein, the imposition of the minimum sentence of 15 years to life was grossly disproportionate to the crime for which it is exacted and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of defendant's constitutional rights ( People v Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100, 125, cert denied 423 U.S. 950; People v Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477). We note that defendant had no prior criminal record, has steadily worked and supported a family, including three young daughters, the sentencing court expressed misgivings about the sentence, commenting on defendant's "excellent background" and that he had been "a hard working man * * * all of [his] life" with the exception of this particular incident. We, therefore, reduce the sentence to 3 years to life.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.