[*2]Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the District Court, Nassau County (E. Hart, J.), rendered May 7, 2001, convicting him, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claims that the proof was inadequate to establish the chain of custody of the substances contained in two small ziplock bags found in his pocket at the time of his arrest, or the reliability of the laboratory analysis which demonstrated that the substances were crack cocaine (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 62; People v Matos, 255 AD2d 156; People v Moore, 248 AD2d 405).

Were we to consider these claims in the interest of justice, we would nevertheless affirm. The evidence satisfied the threshold test of admissibility (People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 344; People v Rivera, 184 AD2d 153, 156), and the alleged weaknesses in the proof, if true, merely "discredit[ed] the weight of the evidence" (Julian, 41 NY2d at 344), which issues the jury resolved in the prosecution's favor. In any event, the evidence sufficed to demonstrate that the arresting officer preserved the evidence on his person until vouchered at the precinct station house, thereby providing "reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence" (People v Afflic, 275 AD2d 647). Defendant's arguments concerning possible commingling with evidence seized from other suspects is speculative and without foundation in the trial proof (People v Canosa, 194 [*3]AD2d 392; see also People v Cortijo, 251 AD2d 256, 257). Similarly, the alleged discrepancy-in the identification of the officer who handed the evidence to the laboratory technician for analysis is an insufficient basis to disturb the verdict. It is not necessary that every person who handled the evidence testify to prove the requisite chain of custody (People v Pacheco, 274 AD2d 746, 747), here established by testimony that the ziplock bags and their contents were properly vouchered and sealed in an evidence envelope which remained unbroken until opened for testing (people v Matos, 255 AD2d 156; People v Sarmiento, 168 AD2d 328). Finally, we find that the laboratory analyst's testimony as to the testing procedure and its results sufficed to support the verdict (People v Quinones, 191 AD2d 398, 400-401). The claimed irregularities were presented to the jury by defendant's expert witness and by the informed arguments of defense counsel (People v Culhane, 45 NY2d 757, 758), and rejected, a determination we will not disturb.
Decision Date: October 01, 2003