PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of two counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1] ).   Contrary to defendant's contention, the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), the evidence at trial “ could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 420, 626 N.Y.S.2d 20, 649 N.E.2d 1164;  see People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People failed to establish an adequate chain of custody with respect to the cocaine inasmuch as he did not object to its admission in evidence (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Drayton, 270 A.D.2d 826, 705 N.Y.S.2d 317, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 834, 713 N.Y.S.2d 141, 735 N.E.2d 421).   In any event, “ ‘[t]he testimony presented at the trial sufficiently established the authenticity of that evidence through reasonable assurances of identity and unchanged condition’ ” (People v. Washington, 39 A.D.3d 1228, 1230, 834 N.Y.S.2d 407, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 870, 840 N.Y.S.2d 899, 872 N.E.2d 1205;  see People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310).   Contrary to defendant's further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

 Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court's Sandoval ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion (see People v. Robles, 38 A.D.3d 1294, 1295, 832 N.Y.S.2d 339, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 990, 838 N.Y.S.2d 493, 869 N.E.2d 669).   In any event, we reject the contention of defendant that the court abused its discretion in permitting the People to cross-examine him with respect to certain of his prior convictions (see People v. Alston, 27 A.D.3d 1141, 1142, 811 N.Y.S.2d 251, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 892, 817 N.Y.S.2d 627, 850 N.E.2d 674).   Those convictions demonstrated the willingness of defendant “to further [his] self-interest at the expense of society or in derogation of the interests of others” (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413), and the record establishes that the court properly “weighed appropriate concerns and limited both the number of convictions and the scope of permissible cross-examination” (People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 208, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963).   Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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

MEMORANDUM: