Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that the jury's verdict is repugnant is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to the verdict prior to the discharge of the jury (see, People v Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048; People v. Almeida, 159 A.D.2d 508). In any event, contrary to the defendant's assertions, the verdict is not repugnant. Inasmuch as possession is not a necessary element of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 220.39), the jury's acquittal of the defendant of the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 220.16) does not render infirm his conviction on the sale count (see, People v. Basora, 151 A.D.2d 588, affd 75 N.Y.2d 992; People v Gaviria, 148 A.D.2d 630).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.