Opinion
March 13, 1992
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Marks, J.
Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Doerr, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not err in denying defendant's request for disclosure of the identity of the informant (see, People v Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, cert denied 419 U.S. 1012). Although the informant introduced the undercover officer to defendant, he did not witness the sale. The proof of identification was overwhelming, and defendant's testimony that he was at home at the time of the sale was weak and of dubious credibility.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the illegal drugs seized during defendant's arrest. The police had probable cause to make the arrest based upon the knowledge of one of the investigating officers who had witnessed the sale of drugs by defendant, which knowledge was imputed to the arresting officer (see, People v Wroblewski, 109 A.D.2d 39, 42-43, affd 67 N.Y.2d 933, cert denied 479 U.S. 845; see also, People v Jennings, 54 N.Y.2d 518, 522; People v Bouton, 50 N.Y.2d 130, 136; People v Morales, 116 A.D.2d 671, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 887).
The issue of whether the court should have given a missing witness charge to the jury was not preserved for appellate review.
Finally, we reject defendant's contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel.