Opinion
March 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the testimony of the backup team bolstered the testimony of the undercover officers who allegedly purchased narcotics from him. We disagree. The backup team testified that after they were given a description of the seller, they went to the scene of the crime, and spotted an individual who matched the description. They identified this individual as Luther Glover, the defendant. The defendant was not arrested at that time. We find that this testimony was a necessary explanation of the events which resulted in the defendant's arrest (see, People v. Byrd, 187 A.D.2d 724; People v. Sarmiento, 168 A.D.2d 328, affd 77 N.Y.2d 976).
We agree with the defendant that the viewing by the undercover police officers Johnson, Giordano, and Stanton of a single photograph of the defendant several days after the drug sale was not a confirmatory identification and was unnecessarily suggestive (see, People v. Waring, 183 A.D.2d 271). However, we find, based on the evidence adduced at the Wade hearing, that an independent basis existed to allow the defendant to be identified by these officers at trial. We note that the viewing by a different undercover police officer which took place on the same day of the criminal sale was confirmatory in nature (see, People v. Kearn, 118 A.D.2d 871).
We also find that the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his objections to the trial court's identification charge, since he did not alert the trial court that he was not satisfied with it (see, People v. Jakes, 181 A.D.2d 913).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We find the defendant's remaining contentions to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.