Opinion
89
January 30, 2003.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered October 20, 2000, 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, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5½ to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.
Willa Concannon, for Respondent.
Jonathan Garelick, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ.
Defendant's various arguments concerning the court and prosecutor's questioning of the police witnesses as to the use of brand names in packaging drugs are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that in this observation sale case where defendant and the apprehended buyer were in possession of drugs bearing the same brand name, the testimony constituted relevant background information (see People v. Rodriguez, 227 A.D.2d 200, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 993), and we would further find that it did not require the court to deliver an instruction on expert witnesses (compare People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 433, with People v. Brown, 97 N.Y.2d 500, 504-507) or formally declare the officers to be such (see People v. Thompson, 284 A.D.2d 215, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 643).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.