Opinion
May 3, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested and charged as a result of a so-called "buy and bust" operation involving the sale of cocaine. The evidence reveals that during the undercover officer's drive-by showup identification, he positively identified the defendant, but was unable to identify another, who fit the description of the second perpetrator. The defendant was then arrested and the other individual was let go. Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the negative identification evidence presented was relevant to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and did not constitute improper bolstering of the undercover officer's identification of the defendant (see, People v Bolden, 58 N.Y.2d 741, 744 [concurring opn, Gabrielli, J.]; People v White, 151 Misc.2d 171).
The defendant also contends that the officer's written description of the defendant, which was recorded as it was broadcast over the police radio, constituted Rosario material (see, People v Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 955; People v Moss, 176 A.D.2d 826). However, the issue was unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Sheppard, 185 A.D.2d 904) and under the circumstances presented herein, we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdictions. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Balletta and Joy, JJ., concur.