Opinion
November 23, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Joan B. Carey, J., Edward Sheridan, J.
The stationhouse identification of defendant was confirmatory in nature. The trained narcotics officer who made the identification had watched defendant sell crack, directed his backup team to arrest defendant, and then watched the arrest. Thus the stationhouse procedure, occurring a short time later, was not impermissibly suggestive (People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921).
Defendant's contention that probable cause for his arrest was not established because the only witness called was the backup officer who made the arrest, rather than the officer who allegedly witnessed the illegal activity, is unpreserved as a matter of law and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review we would find that it was not necessary for the People to call the officer who witnessed the illegal activity to testify at the suppression hearing (People v Acevedo, 179 A.D.2d 465, 467, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 996).
We further find that the court made a sufficient and thorough inquiry of the pregnant juror to determine that she could not continue her jury service.
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.