Opinion
March 16, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.).
In this "buy-and-bust" prosecution, in which the nonrecovery of buy money was integral to the defense of misidentification it was relevant and material, as background evidence, for police officers to describe the organization and execution of a buy-and-bust operation (People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248; People v. Ramos, 192 A.D.2d 324, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1078), as well as to explain why buy money often is not recovered from suspects (People v. Kelsey, supra; People v. Tevaha, 204 A.D.2d 92, affd 84 N.Y.2d 879). The mere fact that such evidence is introduced from several sources does not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. While it is the better practice for police officers not to quantify their experiences when drug suspects are not in possession of buy money (see, People v. Kelsey, supra), such testimony in this case does not warrant reversal (People v Tevaha, supra).
Defendant failed to preserve his bolstering claims (People v Carolina, 211 A.D.2d 454). Since an arresting officer may testify that he or she acted on a description provided by the undercover officer, and that the suspect fit that description (People v Hynes, 193 A.D.2d 516, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 755), and that the undercover officer confirmed the identification (People v Chapman, 202 A.D.2d 297, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 965), we find no basis to review in the interest of justice.
We have considered the remaining claims and find they do not warrant any modification of the judgment.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.