PEOPLE v. SMITH

Limited expert testimony was permissible to explain the absence of buy money on defendant after the sale, since there was evidence upon which to infer the existence of possible accomplices ( compare, People v. Taylor, 247 A.D.2d 277, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 978, with People v. Colon, 238 A.D.2d 18, appeal dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 909).

The isolated comment by the prosecutor during summation concerning the reasons that the arresting officer did not search the individual standing in proximity to defendant could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.