Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.), rendered September 10, 1993, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant was indicted on one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The charges stem from the seizure of 12.74 grams of cocaine found in the bottom of an oil can located in the vehicle defendant was driving, owned by her boyfriеnd and codefendant, Ronald Vincent (see, People v Vincent,
County Court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the drugs found in the car. Following a jury trial, defendant was
Addressing defendant’s assertions ad seriatim, we note that defendant’s claims as to jurisdictional infirmity are really directed to the underlying factual allegations. She urges that the indictment is faulty in that it alleges that defendant committed the сrime while being aided and abetted by Vincent and it further alleges that defendant was acting in concert with Vincent. Defendant contends that these allegations are inconsistent. She further contends that because one paragraph of the indictment does not allege accomplice liability, it is thus insufficient. Though a bill of particulars was granted to defendant to amplify the charge, defendant never moved to dismiss the indictment as containing contradictions and/or for failure to set out all required elements of the crime charged. Her factual arguments, in this regard, raised for the first time on appeаl, are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to address them (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see also, People v lannone,
To the extent that defendant is сlaiming a jurisdictional defect, we disagree. Defendant was fairly apprised of the charge against her. The indictment satisfies legal sufficiency and fair notice requirements (see, People v Ray,
Defendant next contends that the search warrant executed herein does not pass legal sufficiency under the AguilarSpinelli test. From the excerpts of the in camera testimony included in the parties’ appendices, it is clear that Bostwick testified before County Court about his conversation with defendant and Vincent concerning their trip to New York City to purchase cocaine and that Vincent agreed to get Bostwick four grams of cocaine for every $200 he gave him. Bostwick’s testimony established his reliability.
Defendant was present during the conversation and it was clear that she was accompanying Vincent to New York City to make the purсhase. Additionally, Roney testified about his
Defendant also urges that her name should have been contained in the seаrch warrant as it could be expected that she would be accompanying Vincent. We find the search warrant adеquate in that it ordered the search of the vehicle and any person found therein in conformity with statutory requirements (seе, CPL 690.15 [2]). We find defendant’s arguments to the contrary to be without merit.
Finally, defendant urges that it was error not to dismiss the indictment or apрoint a special prosecutor because Assistant District Attorney Gerald Keene had personally represеnted defendant in connection with a 1983 burglary charge, as well as members of her family on prior occasions. We notе that the prior unrelated criminal charge antedates the instant matter by some 10 years. Defendant did not allege or оffer proof of any prejudice accruing to her vis-a-vis Keene’s appearance in the matter. At most, we have here the inference of impropriety, which standing alone is not sufficient to require setting aside the indictment (see, Matter of Morgenthau v Crane,
Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.