People v. Toppy

*636In this observation sale case, the court properly exercised its discretion in receiving, with suitable limiting instructions, evidence of a contemporaneous uncharged sale to an unapprehended buyer. This sale was relevant to establish the observing officer’s ability to make a reliable identification, to complete the narrative of events leading up to the arrest, and to explain why the observing officer targeted defendant and focused on her activity (see e.g. People v Carter, 77 NY2d 95, 107 [1990], cert denied 499 US 967 [1991]; People v Urena, 306 AD2d 137 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 625…