PEOPLE v. CRUZ

The court properly denied defendant's severance motion. The indictments were the same in law, and were thus joinable under CPL 200.20(2)(c), and defendant did not establish any basis for a discretionary severance pursuant to CPL 200.20(3) (see,People v. Castle, 251 A.D.2d 891, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 923). Moreover, the charges were also joinable under CPL 200.20(2)(b).

Background testimony was properly admitted to explain why the officer's attention was drawn to defendant and why she observed him for such a long period prior to his first sale. The officer had sufficient experience to be qualified as an expert and her testimony was limited and relevant (see, People v. Almodovar, 178 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 943;People v. Rosario, 223 A.D.2d 492, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 884).

Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

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