Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The overt act necessary to the conspiracy ( see People v Ribowsky, 77 NY2d 284, 293; People v Bongarzone, 116 AD2d 164, affd 69 NY2d 892) was established through evidence of a series of telephone conversations concerning the delivery of the illicit substances ( see People v Hernandez, 242 AD2d 339, 340; People v Menache, 98 AD2d 335, 337-338), as explained by a police officer qualified as an expert in narcotics code and jargon ( see People v Hunt, 249 AD2d 246; People v White, 184 AD2d 798). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The defendant's claim that the County Court erred in failing to declare a mistrial was waived by the defendant's rejection of the County Court's offer to do so ( see People v White, 53 NY2d 721, 723; People v Cerami, 33 NY2d 243, 248). In any event, any prejudice to the defendant was overcome by the prompt curative instruction given by the County Court ( see People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294; People v Smith, 288 AD2d 244).