Court Opinion

ID: 5967647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 07:23:36.284015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:22.547379
License: Public Domain

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered September 19, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the seller of cocaine in the form commonly known as crack (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). 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 Maisonet, 172 AD2d 274). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.