Majority
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the People failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody with
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 , 621), we conclude that the proof was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.
The People concede that during summation the prosecutor improperly commented on defendant’s failure to call his parole officer as a witness (see, People v Harris, 35 NY2d 665 ). In the context of the entire summation, however, that isolated remark was harmless (see, People v Morgan, 66 NY2d 255 , 259).
We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Donovan 141 AD2d 835 at 837 p. 1029
- People v. Piazza 121 AD2d 573 at 574 p. 1029
- People v. Crimmins 36 NY2d 230 at 240 p. 1029
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 at 621 p. 1029
- People v. Harris 35 NY2d 665 p. 1029
- People v. Morgan 66 NY2d 255 at 259 p. 1029