Calendar Date: March 28, 2018Before: Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ.__________Marshall Nadan, Kingston, for appellant.David E. Woodin, Special Prosecutor, Catskill, forrespondent.__________Pritzker, J.Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County(Wilhelm, J.), rendered December 1, 2015, upon a verdictconvicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree.In August 2014, State Trooper Gregory Overholt received adispatch regarding a disturbance at an apartment complex. Uponhis arrival, he observed a white Jeep Cherokee driving at a highrate of speed in a reckless manner towards the complex’s exit.He immediately turned on his emergency lights, at which point heobserved Russell Felter, the driver, and defendant, thepassenger, who both appeared nervous, attempt to flee beforestopping again. Overholt detained both individuals, patted themdown and placed them on the bumper of his vehicle. At thispoint, another state trooper arrived at the scene andsubsequently saw a plastic bag containing heroin on the passengerseat of the jeep. Felter and defendant were then arrested.Defendant was charged by indictment with criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree.Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from thetraffic stop on the basis that it was an illegal search andseizure. After conducting a Mapp hearing, County Court deniedthe motion to suppress. Following a jury trial, defendant wasfound guilty of the charged crime and sentenced, as a secondfelony offender, to 10 years in prison with three years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals. We affirm.Initially, defendant contends that the trooper lackedreasonable suspicion or probable cause to initiate the stopbecause the vehicle was not on a public street. This contentionis not preserved as defendant advanced no such argument at thesuppression hearing. Rather, defendant focused on describing thesituation as an illegal detention on the basis that the situationhad resolved itself in that defendant, who admitted to causingthe disturbance, was leaving the property. County Court, indenying the motion to suppress, only addressed the issue asframed by defendant, not as presented here. Therefore, thisargument is not properly before this Court (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Miranda, 27 NY3d 931, 932-933 [2016]; People v Graham,25 NY3d 994, 996-997 [2015]).Defendant next contends that County Court erred in allowingthe People to introduce testimony regarding uncharged criminalconduct. “While evidence of prior bad acts or uncharged crimesis inadmissible to prove the crime charged or to show adefendant’s propensity to commit this crime, an exception to thisrule exists where the evidence is admitted to show a defendant’sintent, especially after the defendant has put his or her intentat issue” (People v Wright, 5 AD3d 873, 875 [2004] [citationsomitted], lv denied 3 NY3d 651 [2004]; accord People v Allen, 132AD3d 1156, 1159 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1107 [2016]). Here,from the outset of trial, defendant sought to portray Felter asthe owner of the heroin at issue, beginning with defensecounsel’s opening statement. Defendant also elicited testimonyof a witness who claimed that the drugs found in the jeepbelonged to her, that Felter sold heroin and that she never knewdefendant to sell drugs. Inasmuch as defendant put his intent atissue, we find that evidence of heroin — seized as a result ofsearch warrants issued for defendant’s home and a vehicleassociated with it — was relevant for the purpose of establishingdefendant’s knowledge of and intent to sell heroin and was,therefore, properly admitted at trial. Additionally, evidence ofuncharged crimes that related to the sale and transportation ofheroin for similar purposes was also properly admitted as it wasprobative of defendant’s intent to sell heroin, an element of thecrime charged; County Court’s limiting instruction andadmonishment lessened the prejudicial impact of this evidence(see People v Wells, 141 AD3d 1013, 1019 [2016], lvs denied 28NY3d 1183, 1189 [2017]; People v Wilson, 100 AD3d 1045, 1047-1048[2012], lv denied 22 NY3d 998 [2013]). Therefore, his convictionis affirmed.Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
