People v. Hynes

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before ROSENBERGER
• Citation: People v. Hynes, 598 N.Y.S.2d 182, 193 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
• Decision Date: 20 May 1993
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Patrick HYNES, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 182

598 N.Y.S.2d 182

193 A.D.2d 516

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Patrick HYNES, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

May 20, 1993.

Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and KUPFERMAN, ASCH and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph A. Mazur, J.), rendered April 18, 1991, convicting defendant, after 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 4 1/2 to 9 years on each count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's objection to the testimony of the arresting officer on hearsay grounds was insufficient to preserve his claim on appeal of prejudicial bolstering (People v. Qualls, 55 N.Y.2d 733, 447 N.Y.S.2d 149, 431 N.E.2d 634), and defendant cannot rely on objections to the undercover officer's testimony made by counsel for the codefendant to preserve the issue for appellate review as a matter of law (People v. Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d 843, 846, 552 N.Y.S.2d 912, 552 N.E.2d 160). In any event, the testimony of the undercover officer, together with the testimony of the arresting officer, regarding the descriptions of the drug sellers radioed and received was properly admitted to provide a necessary explanation of the events which precipitated defendant's arrest (People v. Sarmiento, 168 A.D.2d 328, 329, 565 N.Y.S.2d 1, aff'd, 77 N.Y.2d 976, 571 N.Y.S.2d 906, 575 N.E.2d 392).

As defendant failed to take exception to the verdict at the trial level, he has failed to preserve any claim of error for appellate...