PEOPLE v. WIGGINS (2004)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10[1], [3] ).   Defendant contends that County Court erred in permitting the victim to testify that he had purchased marihuana from defendant on two occasions and therefore recognized him as one of his assailants.   Defendant failed to object when the prosecutor sought to introduce that testimony and thus failed to preserve his contention for our review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Taylor, 2 A.D.3d 1306, 1308, 769 N.Y.S.2d 797, lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 746, 778 N.Y.S.2d 472, 810 N.E.2d 925;  People v. Hood, 288 A.D.2d 923, 732 N.Y.S.2d 522, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 705, 739 N.Y.S.2d 106, 765 N.E.2d 309).   In any event, that contention lacks merit.   Although the victim also testified that he had seen defendant “around,” the testimony of the victim that he had purchased marihuana from defendant was relevant in establishing the identity of defendant, and we conclude that the court did not err in determining that the probative value of the testimony outweighed the potential for prejudice to defendant (see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808).

 Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of the victim that he heard a rumor that defendant had a “beef” with him (see CPL 470.05[2];  see generally People v. Pierre, 300 A.D.2d 1070, 752 N.Y.S.2d 491, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 631, 760 N.Y.S.2d 112, 790 N.E.2d 286).   In any event, we note that the testimony was elicited during defendant's cross-examination of the victim.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: