Opinion
June 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.).
Defendant's claim that the arresting officer bolstered the undercover officer's identification testimony is not preserved as a matter of law for failure to interpose specific objections to the arresting officer's testimony ( see, People v. Alvarez, 211 A.D.2d 425, 426; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641), and, in any event, is without merit. It is well settled in the context of buy-and-bust operations that neither police testimony as to a confirmatory drive-by identification, nor an undercover's description of the seller given to an arresting officer, constitutes bolstering ( People v. Alvarez, supra). Such testimony provides a necessary explanation of the events which precipitated defendant's arrest ( People v. Sarmiento, 168 A.D.2d 328, 329, affd 77 N.Y.2d 976). We note that the partial discrepancies in the undercover's description of defendant's clothing are without significance in view of the fact that upon defendant's arrest, he was in possession of the pre-recorded buy money. In addition, from the trial evidence and the permissible inferences to be drawn from it, it could be inferred that defendant had quick and convenient access to a nearby apartment after the sale to the undercover where he hid the drugs and partially changed his clothes. We further note that the undercover's confirmatory drive-by identification was, under the circumstances, reliable.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.