Opinion
January 29, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Preliminarily, we note that the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing sufficiently established the existence of probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594; People v. Thomas, 143 A.D.2d 696; People v. Wheeler, 140 A.D.2d 731). An experienced narcotics officer testified that, in an area which is known for its high incidence of narcotics trafficking, he observed the defendant exchange several small clear plastic bags for a sum of United States currency. This officer, together with his partner, thereafter followed the defendant into a nearby establishment, known as the "Blue Room". Several patrons alerted the defendant to the fact that the police had arrived upon the scene, and the defendant was observed by both officers throwing a small plastic bag toward the bar area. The officer subsequently retrieved the bag, and discovered that it contained what he believed to be cocaine. The retrieval of the plastic bag discarded by the defendant, which appeared to contain cocaine, provided the necessary probable cause to arrest him (see, People v. Cordero, 140 A.D.2d 367; People v. Greaves, 123 A.D.2d 445).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court did not err in permitting testimony regarding money which was discovered on the defendant's person at the time of his arrest. In this respect, we note that no objection to this testimony was made until after closing arguments, and after the jury was instructed. Thus, any issue of law with respect to this claim is not properly preserved for our review. In any event, in light of the fact that the defendant was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, which encompasses an intent to sell, this testimony was properly admitted as it is relevant to the crime charged (see, People v. Jones, 138 A.D.2d 405; People v. Ramirez, 125 A.D.2d 343; cf., People v. Morales, 133 A.D.2d 90; People v. Brown, 71 A.D.2d 918).
The portion of the prosecutor's summation to which the defendant assigns error, while improper, does not warrant reversal (see, People v. Corley, 140 A.D.2d 536). In this regard, we note that the jury was well informed of the applicable principles of law, and was given a curative instruction immediately after the comment was made.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Finally, we find that the sentence the defendant received was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.