In this observation sale case, the court properly admitted expert testimony as to the market value of a glassine envelope of heroin at the relevant time and place, along with the expert's opinion that the amount of money recovered from defendant was consistent with the amount he would have received in return for the total amount of drugs recovered from the two buyers. In addition to being relevant to the charge of possession with intent to sell contained in the indictment, this testimony constituted corroborating evidence that defendant made the two observed sales ( see e.g. People v. Robinson, 272 A.D.2d 186, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 870). The expert testimony did not suggest uncharged sales or invade the province of the jury ( see People v. Brown, 97 N.Y.2d 500, 505-507). The court proposed a limiting instruction, but defendant rejected that proposal and declined the court's offer to suggest an alternative instruction, thereby waiving his present claim that a different instruction should have been provided ( People v. Gonzalez, 99 N.Y.2d 76, 83). In any event, the instruction proposed by the court would have been appropriate.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.