Opinion
July 20, 1995
Appeal from the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J., Bruhn, J.).
Convicted after pleading guilty to three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, defendant argues that his conviction must be reversed, and the indictment dismissed, because the officer who arrested him did not have probable cause to do so. This argument is to no avail. Although defendant points to selected portions of suppression hearing testimony to support his contention, it is apparent, on reading the testimony of the undercover detective to whom defendant allegedly sold cocaine, as well as that of the arresting officer, Detective Timothy Matthews, that Matthews was personally involved in the investigation that led to defendant's arrest ( cf., People v. Gittens, 211 A.D.2d 242), and had been made aware of sufficient information — including the details of the illegal transactions, and the name, address and physical description of the person selling narcotics on those occasions — to justify arresting defendant, after he admitted having the same name and address ( see, People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 51-52, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; People v. Crespo, 189 A.D.2d 700, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 883).
As for defendant's assertion that County Court erroneously permitted the undercover officer, who had previously identified defendant from a single photograph under circumstances that were found to have been unduly suggestive, to identify him at trial, it suffices to note that the officer's observations of defendant during the three drug transactions at issue provided ample independent basis for his in-court identification ( see, People v Volpe, 177 A.D.2d 524, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 866; People v. Ware, 173 A.D.2d 903, 904).
Nor are we amenable to defendant's claim that his motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. While he now suggests that his plea, which was made and accepted after trial by jury had begun and the People had rested, was coerced by the misrepresentations of his attorney, this issue was not raised previously, either at the time defendant sought to withdraw his plea or in his CPL 440.10 motion papers, and hence is not properly before us ( see, People v. Green, 111 A.D.2d 349). Beyond that, County Court did not err in finding that some of the matters that were raised therein, including an attack on the propriety of the Grand Jury proceedings, were not the proper subjects of a posttrial motion ( see, CPL 440.10 [b]; People v. Cooks, 67 N.Y.2d 100, 104), and that the remainder could be adequately reviewed, and determined to be meritless, without the need for an evidentiary hearing ( see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799; see also, People v. Burke, 197 A.D.2d 731).
Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.