Opinion
November 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Robert Haft, J., Felice Shea, J.
We reject defendant's claim of improper "bolstering". Testimony which provides a narrative of the events leading to a defendant's arrest and an explanation for why the officers ultimately arrested a particular defendant is proper ( People v Candelario, 156 A.D.2d 191, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 964). In addition, in "buy and bust" cases, an arresting officer's testimony as to a confirmatory drive-by identification is admissible and does not constitute bolstering ( People v Alvarez, 211 A.D.2d 425, affd 86 N.Y.2d 761; People v Rosado, 191 A.D.2d 262, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1019).
Defendant's summation claim is not preserved (CPL 470.05). In any case, the isolated comment of the prosecutor of which defendant now complains, even if not an accurate statement of the specific testimony to which it referred, was fairly inferable from other evidence adduced, and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.