Although the People should not ordinarily introduce evidence of unmarked cash removed from a defendant absent charges of multiple sales or possession with intent to sell (see, People v. Haynes, 172 A.D.2d 242, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 967), we note that the People did not use this evidence to show that the defendant was in the business of selling drugs (cf., People v. Jones, 62 A.D.2d 356). Moreover, the evidence was relevant as corroborating the officer's testimony that defendant had received money from the buyer moments before the arrest (People v. Sanchez, 181 A.D.2d 499; People v. Mitchell, 171 A.D.2d 403). In any event, given the relatively small amount of money ($64) and the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, even if we were to have found error in the introduction of this evidence, we would have found it harmless (see, People v. Cotto, 169 A.D.2d 517).
The challenged statement of the defendant, made before he was advised of his constitutional rights, need not have been suppressed, since the defendant had initiated the conversation and the arresting officer responded immediately and only briefly by specifying the offense he had observed (see, People v Hampton, 129 A.D.2d 736).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kassal and Smith, JJ.