Opinion
January 30, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.).
There was probable cause to arrest defendant once the back-up officer received a transmission from the undercover officer that he was "holding two" at a certain location. On prior occasions, the undercover officer had used the same expression to signal to the back-up team that he had arrested the participants in a sale. Furthermore, upon arriving at the scene, the officer found the undercover officer holding defendant and his codefendant against a wall at gunpoint ( People v Hernandez, 189 A.D.2d 634, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 887). Probable cause was also established once the undercover officer confirmed, in substance, that these were two of the three persons involved in the transaction and left them in the back-up officer's custody so that he could look for the third participant ( People v Destine, 216 A.D.2d 127).
The court's preclusion of cocounsel's repetitive cross-examination about overtime and the court's questioning about the activities of the back-up team members and the failure to recover stash "`ke[pt] the proceedings within the reasonable confines of the issues and * * * encourage[d] clarity rather than obscurity in the development of proof'" ( People v Brown, 199 A.D.2d 11, 12, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 849).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.