Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the admission into evidence of testimony that a large sum of money was recovered from him at the time of his arrest for a single sale of narcotics is without merit. The defendant made no objection to the initial testimony by a police officer that money was recovered from the defendant; therefore, the issue has thus not been preserved for appellate review. In addition, it was the defendant, on cross-examination of that same officer, who elicited testimony as to the amount of money recovered ($325), and thus, if the defendant suffered prejudice, it was caused by his own actions (cf. People v. Lizzarra, 70 A.D.2d 572; People v Jones, 62 A.D.2d 356). Thus, the court properly denied the defense request for a "limiting" instruction.
Finally, the trial court did not err in denying defense counsel's request that the jury be permitted to view the scene of the crime (see, People v. Rao, 107 A.D.2d 720). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.