Opinion
September 23, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eiber, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
It was not error to permit both the undercover and arresting officers to make an in-court identification of defendant where, after making the drug purchase from defendant, the undercover officer radioed a description to the arresting officer and thereafter directed him to the defendant (see, People v Griffin, 106 A.D.2d 402).
Further, probable cause to arrest the defendant was established where the arresting officer was acting pursuant to the radio transmission received from the undercover officer who had purchased the drug, and there was no question raised as to the reliability of the information received (see, People v Reddick, 107 A.D.2d 721).
Under the circumstances of this case, the fact that the sentencing court failed to inquire of defendant as to whether he wished to contest the constitutionality of his prior felony conviction does not warrant vacating the sentence imposed (see, People v Leonard, 109 A.D.2d 754).
Further, the defendant has not demonstrated any cogent reasons for our modifying the sentence imposed as being excessive. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.