Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant's contention that his conviction for conspiracy and underlying narcotics-related crimes violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Defendant had previously been convicted on similar charges (see, People v Stokes [No. 124], 198 A.D.2d 847 [decided herewith]), but the factual allegations underlying the respective indictments concerned separate and distinct transactions (see, People v Vera, 47 N.Y.2d 825; People v Abbamonte, 43 N.Y.2d 74). Moreover, under the circumstances, and particularly in light of the absence of a motion to consolidate the indictments, the court was under no obligation to consolidate (CPL 200.20, [4], [5]).
Also without merit is defendant's contention that the jury was improperly charged on reasonable doubt. The court's charge that a reasonable doubt is a doubt that can be articulated did not dilute the People's burden of proof (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 250-251, rearg denied 81 N.Y.2d 759). Because no challenge for cause was made to a prospective juror who had expressed doubt regarding her ability to render an impartial verdict (see, People v Matthews 198 A.D.2d 849 [decided herewith]), defendant may not argue on appeal that the juror should have been dismissed for cause. Based upon the totality of counsel's representation, we conclude that defendant was accorded meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.