Opinion
February 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The evidence showed that defendant asked the undercover officer how many glassines he wanted, and then directed the undercover to his brother, who delivered one glassine of heroin to the undercover in exchange for $10 in prerecorded currency. Defendant and his brother then engaged in brief hand-to-hand contact with an unapprehended male, who ran away as soon as he observed other officers arrest defendant and his brother. Thus, the limited testimony regarding typical roles played by participants in street-level drug sales was admissible to explain the absence of prerecorded buy money on defendant and his brother at the time of their arrest (People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248, 252). The People's theory that the money was handed off to a third person was grounded in the evidence (see, People v. Colon, 238 A.D.2d 18).
The challenged portions of the People's summation do not warrant reversal (see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.