Opinion
April 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).
The undercover's uncontroverted testimony established that the officer readily identified defendant three days after defendant had sold heroin to the officer. The jury's determination that the undercover's identification testimony was credible should be accorded great weight and any minor inconsistencies in the testimony were for the jury to reconcile (see, People v Cox, 161 A.D.2d 724, 725, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 786). Defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by the admission of background evidence concerning the procedures used in street level purchases of narcotics, since the evidence helped to provide the jury with an understanding of the officers' behavior (see, People v Almodovar, 178 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 943). The information described undercover buys in general and did not link defendant with the drug trade in general. The evidence regarding the identification training received by undercovers was particularly probative in this case, where the defense argued that defendant was the victim of mistaken identification (see, supra).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.