Opinion
November 21, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has failed to preserve his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Collardo, 205 A.D.2d 796; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The undercover officers had ample time to observe the defendant during this face-to-face transaction. Twenty-five minutes later, the undercover officers made a confirmatory identification at the station house. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court did not err in denying his motion for a Wade hearing. The defendant was arrested based on a description provided by undercover police officers who were involved in a face-to-face transaction with him. The defendant was arrested within minutes of the transaction and was identified by the undercover officers at the station house approximately 25 minutes later. Under the circumstances, no hearing on the issue of suggestiveness of the identification was required (see, People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Johnson, 178 A.D.2d 659; People v. Jackson, 171 A.D.2d 756).
Finally, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.