PEOPLE v. VERA (1999)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irene Duffy, J.), rendered January 9, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 1/212 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

 Since defendant sought no further relief after the court took curative action with respect to uncharged crimes evidence, her current claim that such evidence deprived her of a fair trial is unpreserved (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.   Were we to review this claim, we would find that there was no prejudicial suggestion of large-scale drug activity (see, People v. Pressley, 216 A.D.2d 202, 628 N.Y.S.2d 682, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 800, 632 N.Y.S.2d 514, 656 N.E.2d 613).

 The undercover officer's testimony regarding the roles of various participants in street-level drug operations properly provided an explanation for the absence of the pre-recorded buy money on defendant (see, People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248, 606 N.Y.S.2d 621), was grounded in the evidence (see, People v. Taylor, 247 A.D.2d 277, 667 N.Y.S.2d 909, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 978, 672 N.Y.S.2d 857, 695 N.E.2d 726), and was not excessive (see, People v. McAllister, 255 A.D.2d 241, 682 N.Y.S.2d 129).

 We find that any prejudice from improper summation comments made by the prosecution was corrected when the court sustained objections and issued curative instructions (see, People v. Ferguson, 82 N.Y.2d 837, 606 N.Y.S.2d 145, 626 N.E.2d 930).

 The totality of the evidence adduced at the Hinton hearing supported the court's decision to close the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining contentions.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.