Opinion
KA 99-05112
October 1, 2002.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Cornelius, J.), entered October 22, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
R. ADRIAN SOLOMON, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY A. GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HAYES, KEHOE, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his suppression motion because he was arrested without probable cause. We conclude that the police lawfully arrested defendant following his sale of narcotics to an undercover officer during the course of a "buy and bust" operation. The description of the seller broadcast by the undercover officer was sufficiently specific to provide his fellow officers with probable cause to arrest defendant, particularly in view of the fact that defendant was arrested at the specified location immediately after the drug sale and was the only person in the vicinity who matched the description ( see People v. Ortiz, 291 A.D.2d 273; People v. Rampersant, 272 A.D.2d 202, 203, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 870; see also People v. Acevedo, 181 A.D.2d 596, 596, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1045). Also contrary to defendant's contention, the subsequent showup identification by the undercover officer who purchased the drugs from defendant, which procedure took place at or near the scene of the crime and within minutes thereof, was permissible in the interest of prompt identification ( see People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533, 537; see generally People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544). In any event, the undercover officer's identification of defendant was merely confirmatory, and thus a Wade hearing was not required ( see People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 922-923; People v. Sparkman, 278 A.D.2d 875, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 807; People v. Benitez, 221 A.D.2d 965, 965, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 970; see also People v. Reed, 197 A.D.2d 866, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 901).