The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant's course of conduct warrants the conclusion that he was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role included screening potential customers ( see People v. Bello, 92 N.Y.2d 523).
Defendant failed to preserve his claims concerning police testimony as to the roles of participants in street-level narcotics sales ( see People v. Harris, 98 N.Y.2d 452, 492; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them ( see People v. Brown, 97 N.Y.2d 500, 506-507).
We find the sentence to be excessive to the extent indicated.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.