Opinion
August 28, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J., at first suppression hearing; Richard Carruthers, J., at second suppression hearing and jury trial).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with his codefendants in furtherance of the sale (see, People v. Hill, 198 A.D.2d 100; People v. Williams, 172 A.D.2d 448, affd 79 N.Y.2d 803). Upon our independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
Defendant's contention that the identification evidence was suggestive has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v. McDonald, 186 A.D.2d 11), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the confirmatory identifications by the trained undercover narcotics officer, which occurred at a place and time sufficiently connected and contemporaneous to the arrest, constituted the proper completion of an integral police procedure (People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921). Although defendant further challenges the credibility of the police officers who testified at the hearings, since he failed to establish that the challenged testimony was manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to common experience or self-contradictory, we decline to disturb the court's conclusion that the testimony was credible (People v Whitehead, 235 A.D.2d 253).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Colabella, JJ.