Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J., Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court denied him the right to present a defense by precluding testimony that an individual who was arrested with the defendant was the "lost subject" of an undercover police officer's drug purchase two weeks earlier at the same location. Evidence is relevant if it has "`any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence'" (People v Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 27, quoting Uniform Rules of Evidence, rule 401 [1974]). Here, the proffered evidence was not relevant because it did not tend to make it more probable that the defendant did not conduct the transaction for which he was convicted. Therefore, the trial court properly excluded this evidence.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Hammond, 208 A.D.2d 559; People v Laguer, 195 A.D.2d 483, 485).
In light of the foregoing, the defendant is not entitled to vacatur of the guilty plea which resulted in the judgment of conviction rendered May 20, 1993 under Indictment No. 5719/92 (cf., People v Taylor, 80 N.Y.2d 1, 15). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.