Defendant was convicted on evidence that police officers, using binoculars, observed defendant selling crack on a public street. Defendant asserts that is was improper for the trial court to admit evidence that defendant possessed money in his left pants pocket at the time of his arrest. Although this issue is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05), it is clear, in any event, that such evidence was relevant as it corroborated the police officer's testimony that after a sale, defendant placed money in his left pocket. (See, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293; cf., People v Jones, 62 A.D.2d 356.) Moreover, any potential prejudicial effect of the admission was limited by precluding testimony as to the amount of money recovered.
Testimony that defendant was arrested following receipt of a radioed description of the defendant, if violative of People v Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471, 474-477), was at most inferential bolstering, and certainly harmless in light of the strong evidence of defendant's identification. (See, People v Milburn, 19 N.Y.2d 910, 911.)
We have considered defendant's other claims and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.