PEOPLE v. PERGYA (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered November 20, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in allowing the People to elicit testimony from an accomplice regarding his involvement with the defendant in uncharged drug deals and his contention that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of the court's ruling in that regard by eliciting testimony from the accomplice regarding numerous specific acts of individual drug activity are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Pettiford, 28 A.D.3d 687, 812 N.Y.S.2d 371;  People v. Gersten, 280 A.D.2d 487, 719 N.Y.S.2d 900;  People v. Perez, 194 A.D.2d 812, 812-813, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1023;  People v. Sheppard, 186 A.D.2d 600, 601, 588 N.Y.S.2d 808).   In any event, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court properly permitted the People to elicit the challenged testimony (see People v. Carter, 77 N.Y.2d 95, 107, 564 N.Y.S.2d 992, 566 N.E.2d 119;  People v. Jackson, 39 N.Y.2d 64, 68, 382 N.Y.S.2d 736, 346 N.E.2d 537;  People v. De La Cruz, 44 A.D.3d 346, 347, 843 N.Y.S.2d 45;  People v. DeFina, 213 A.D.2d 665, 666, 624 N.Y.S.2d 236;  People v. Leach, 196 A.D.2d 508, 509, 600 N.Y.S.2d 755;  People v. Mascoli, 166 A.D.2d 612, 613, 560 N.Y.S.2d 895), and the testimony did not exceed the bounds of the court's ruling.

 The defendant's contention that the court further erred in failing to give a limiting instruction to the jury regarding its use of the evidence of uncharged crimes also is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Lleshi, 10 A.D.3d 733, 734, 782 N.Y.S.2d 129;  People v. Webb, 1 A.D.3d 542, 543, 767 N.Y.S.2d 259;  People v. Jones, 182 A.D.2d 708, 709, 582 N.Y.S.2d 476).   In any event, any error resulting from the alleged failure was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v. Moore, 50 A.D.3d 926, 854 N.Y.S.2d 782;  People v. Lacewell, 44 A.D.3d 876, 877, 842 N.Y.S.2d 920).

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, including those in his supplemental pro se brief, the defendant received meaningful representation from defense counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

The defendant's contention in his supplemental pro se brief that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate his accomplice's testimony is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Jay, 41 A.D.3d 615, 838 N.Y.S.2d 596;  People v. Shaaban, 14 A.D.3d 721, 789 N.Y.S.2d 240).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Spradley, 50 A.D.3d 931, 854 N.Y.S.2d 670).

Finally, contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Rodriguez, 51 A.D.3d 1043, 857 N.Y.S.2d 912;  People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).