People v. ArtisPeople v. Artis
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The overt act necessary to the conspiracy (see People v Ribowsky, 77 NY2d 284, 293 [1991]; People v Bongarzone, 116 AD2d 164 [1986], affd 69 NY2d 892 [1987]) was established through evidence of a series of telephone conversations concerning the delivery of the illicit substances (see People v Hernandez, 242 AD2d 339, 340 [1997]; People v Menache, 98 AD2d 335, 337-338 [1983]), as explained by a police officer qualified as an expert in narcotics code and jargon (see People v Hunt, 249 AD2d 246 [1998]; People v White, 184 AD2d 798 [1992]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see
The defendant‘s claim that the County Court erred in failing to declare a mistrial was waived by the defendant‘s rejection of the County Court‘s offer to do so (see People v White, 53 NY2d 721, 723 [1981]; People v Cerami, 33 NY2d 243, 248 [1973]). In any event, any prejudice to the defendant was overcome by the prompt curative instruction given by the County Court (see People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294 [1983]; People v Smith, 288 AD2d 244 [2001]).
Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.