Opinion
April 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in finding that his arrest for criminal sale of a controlled substance was supported by probable cause. We disagree. It is well established that where, as here, an arresting officer has acted on the basis of a radio communication from a fellow officer who has personal knowledge of the facts transmitted, "the reliability of the information conveyed may be presumed, and the People are not required to call the undercover officer to testify at the suppression hearing in order to discharge their burden of coming forward with evidence to establish probable cause" (People v Brown, 184 A.D.2d 647, citing People v Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 51, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; see also, People v Haynie, 181 A.D.2d 695). Moreover, the description transmitted to the arresting officer, coupled with the defendant's proximity to the crime scene and his appearance, which closely matched the description of the individual who had just sold narcotics to the undercover officer, constituted "`facts and circumstances which, when viewed together'", would lead a reasonable person having the same expertise as the arresting officer to conclude that the defendant had perpetrated the drug sale (People v Landry, 187 A.D.2d 732; People v Acevedo, 181 A.D.2d 596; People v Javier, 175 A.D.2d 182; People v Harrington, 163 A.D.2d 327).
The defendant's further contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his application for a Wade hearing is without merit (see, People v Polanco, 179 A.D.2d 531, 532, affd 80 N.Y.2d 1012; People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 922; see also, People v Roberts, 169 A.D.2d 284, 289, affd 79 N.Y.2d 964; People v Johnson, 178 A.D.2d 659; People v Jackson, 171 A.D.2d 756). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.