Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered May 19, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a non-jury trial, and imposing sentence.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, WILLIAM E. McCARTHY & RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484; CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Martinez, 289 AD2d 259; People v Torres, 150 AD2d 816). Contrary to the defendant's position, the People proved he was not acting as the agent or mere extension of the buyer (see People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78, 81 cert denied 439 US 958; People v Matos, 123 AD2d 330, 331). The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant displayed an independent interest and his behavior "purposefully affected or furthered the sale of the controlled substance" (People v Martinez, 289 AD2d at 259 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Roche, 45 NY2d at 81; People v Torres, 150 AD2d at 816).
Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
SKELOS, J.P., DILLON, McCARTHY and ENG, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...