PEOPLE v. LAWS (2006)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ) arising from his constructive possession of cocaine found in a house.   Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in permitting the People to present circumstantial evidence that he had been involved in prior drug transactions in order to establish that he had the requisite intent to sell cocaine.   We reject that contention.  “The People normally might rest on the inference available, from defendant's possession of such a substantial quantity of drugs, that he intended to sell them.   They were not required to do so, however, and evidence of prior uncharged crimes was admissible to show the necessary mental state required for the crime” of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808).   In any event, we conclude that any error in the admission of that testimony is harmless (see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Dais, 222 A.D.2d 1045, 1046, 635 N.Y.S.2d 859, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 890, 669 N.Y.S.2d 5, 691 N.E.2d 1031).   Defendant failed to object to the court's ultimate Sandoval ruling and therefore failed to preserve for our review his contention that the ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion (see CPL 470. 05[2];  People v. O'Connor, 19 A.D.3d 1154, 795 N.Y.S.2d 917, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 831, 804 N.Y.S.2d 46, 837 N.E.2d 745;   People v. Englert, 285 A.D.2d 987, 727 N.Y.S.2d 680, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 655, 737 N.Y.S.2d 56, 762 N.E.2d 934).   We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

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

MEMORANDUM: