Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Oscar MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 25, 1999

ELLERIN, P.J., SULLIVAN, LERNER and RUBIN, JJ. Kevin Scott Koplin, for Respondent. Matthew N. Kaplan, for Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered June 6, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 7 to 21 years, and judgment, same court and Justice, rendered December 23, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a concurrent term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

 The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.   There was ample evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that, as part of their drug-selling enterprise, defendant and his codefendant jointly possessed, with intent to sell, drugs found on the codefendant's person (see, People v. Tirado, 38 N.Y.2d 955, 384 N.Y.S.2d 151, 348 N.E.2d 608).

 By failing to object, by making generalized objections, or by failing to request further relief after the court sustained objections and struck testimony, defendant has not preserved his present challenges to testimony regarding community complaints about the sale location and its drug-prone nature, and regarding the undercover officer's transmissions to the backup team and his confirmation of the identity of the sellers, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.   Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal (see, People v. Garcia, 213 A.D.2d 249, 624 N.Y.S.2d 16, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 973, 629 N.Y.S.2d 733, 653 N.E.2d 629;  People v. Hendricks, 223 A.D.2d 409, 636 N.Y.S.2d 774, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 966, 647 N.Y.S.2d 720, 670 N.E.2d 1352).

 We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.