Opinion
April 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Max Sayah, J.).
The arresting officer's testimony to the effect that the undercover officer confirmed defendant as the seller in a post-buy drive-by did not, in the context of this buy-and-bust case, constitute impermissible bolstering of the undercover's own testimony concerning his drive-by confirmatory identification, and was properly admitted as providing a necessary explanation of the events that precipitated defendant's arrest (see, People v Sarmiento, 168 A.D.2d 328, 329, affd 77 N.Y.2d 976). The jury was also properly instructed to consider the undercover officer's testimony in relation to the sale.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.