People v. Grant

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before ELLERIN
• Citation: People v. Grant, 633 N.Y.S.2d 150, 221 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
• Decision Date: 02 November 1995
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fonzo GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 150

633 N.Y.S.2d 150

221 A.D.2d 155

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fonzo GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Nov. 2, 1995.

C.A. Remer-Smith, for respondent.

C.S. Trupp, for defendant-appellant.

Before ELLERIN, J.P., and WALLACH, NARDELLI and WILLIAMS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J. at trial; Felice Shea, J. at sentence), rendered March 17, 1992, 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 and fifth degrees and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, 6 to 12 years and 3 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We reject defendant's claim of improper "bolstering". Testimony which provides a narrative of the events leading to a defendant's arrest and an explanation for why the officers ultimately arrested a particular defendant is proper (People v. Candelario, 156 A.D.2d 191, 548 N.Y.S.2d 448 lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 964, 556 N.Y.S.2d 249, 555 N.E.2d 621). In addition, in "buy and bust" cases, an arresting officer's testimony as to a confirmatory drive-by identification is admissible and does not constitute bolstering (People v. Alvarez, 211 A.D.2d 425, 620 N.Y.S.2d 381, affd 86 N.Y.2d 761, 631 N.Y.S.2d 130, 655 N.E.2d 171; People v. Rosado, 191 A.D.2d 262, 595 N.Y.S.2d 20 lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1019, 600 N.Y.S.2d 207, 616 N.E.2d 864).

Defendant's summation claim is not preserved (CPL 470.05[2]. In any case, the isolated...