Opinion
March 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that a new trial is warranted on the ground that the court failed to issue an adequate identification charge.
The evidence against the defendant was overwhelming. In addition to convincing identification testimony from the undercover officer, the People presented evidence that the defendant was arrested, only minutes after the sale, possessing the prerecorded money. A glassine envelope with the same distinctive markings as the one sold to the undercover officer was also found on the defendant. Thus, any error which may have resulted from the absence of an identification charge was harmless under the facts of this case (see, People v Bishop, 144 A.D.2d 476; People v Grant, 132 A.D.2d 619). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.