Viewing the evidence in this buy and bust case in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference, defendant's guilt of each and every element of the crime charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). An independent review of the facts indicates that the jury accorded appropriate weight to the credible evidence ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The jury's determinations of fact and credibility are supported by the record and will not be disturbed by this Court ( see, People v. Siu Wah Tse, 91 A.D.2d 350, 352).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that, should defendant testify, the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine him regarding only the fact that he had previously been convicted of a "drug-related felony" ( see, People v. Reyes, 171 A.D.2d 461, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 999). Although the prosecutor did not cross-examine defendant regarding his direct testimony that he had previously been convicted of a "drug-related felony", the prosecutor properly directed the jury's attention to that testimony in summation and noted that the court would give appropriate instructions regarding it ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). Defendant entered no objection to the court's subsequent limiting instruction to the jury and, in any event, the court's explicit instructions, inter alia, that the testimony regarding defendant's previous conviction was admitted solely to assist the jurors in making credibility determinations and not as any proof whatsoever that defendant committed the crime charged, conveyed the appropriate legal principles ( see, People v. Hurk, 165 A.D.2d 687, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 1021).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.