Opinion
July 10, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, George Roberts, J., Edward McLaughlin, J.
The court's denial, without a hearing, of defendant's motion to suppress a postarrest station house identification was proper. The precinct house viewing of defendant by a trained undercover narcotics officer who conducted the "buy" one hour earlier constitutes a confirmatory identification, not warranting a Wade hearing. (See, e.g., People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262; People v. Hill, 147 A.D.2d 500, 501 [2d Dept 1989].)
Next, the trial court's instructions concerning inferences which could be drawn from the arresting officer's failure to recover the prerecorded "buy" money did not dilute the People's burden of proof. That instruction was part of the general introductory portion of the charge and the court later instructed the jury on the burden of proof. Viewed as a whole the instruction was proper. (People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695; People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 442.)
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.