PEOPLE v. LOPEZ

Contemporaneous uncharged sales were properly admitted to complete the narrative of events and to establish the extent of the officer's opportunity to observe defendant and make a reliable identification (see,People v. Pressley, 216 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 800).

The court's compromise Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459).

Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional as applied (see, People v. Ingram, 67 N.Y.2d 897, 899), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (see, People v. Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.