Opinion
August 5, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record does not support the defendant's contention that the arresting officer's testimony lacked the specificity necessary to enable the hearing court to decide the issue of probable cause. The description of the perpetrators relayed by the undercover officer to his backup team, one of whom arrested the defendant on the scene within minutes of the narcotics transaction, was sufficiently detailed to provide probable cause to believe that the defendant was one of the individuals who committed the crime (see, People v Erazo, 134 A.D.2d 610). Moreover, the prompt on-the-scene showup identification of the defendant by the undercover officer was consistent with good police procedure (see, People v Erazo, supra; People v Marrero, 110 A.D.2d 785). Mangano, P.J., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.