Opinion
February 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
An undercover police officer made a face-to-face purchase of a quantity of drugs with prerecorded money. Immediately upon leaving the scene, he transmitted a description of the seller to his backup team, which arrested the defendant within minutes. A jury could reasonably rely on that identification of the defendant because it involved a very specific description of his physical characteristics and clothing, made minutes after the sale by a trained police officer under conditions conducive to accurate observation (see, People v Fisher, 143 A.D.2d 1037; People v Azzara, 138 A.D.2d 495).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490).
Finally, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and O'Brien, JJ., concur.