Opinion
November 30, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested in a so-called "buy-and-bust" operation for sale of cocaine to an undercover police officer. The defendant moved to suppress the prerecorded purchase money found on his person. After a suppression hearing, the court denied the motion, finding that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant. We agree.
Probable cause to arrest exists when "the facts and circumstances, viewed together * * * would lead a reasonable person possessing the same expertise as the arresting officer to conclude that an offense has been or is being committed" (People v White, 117 A.D.2d 127, 131, citing Brinegar v United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-176; see also, People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417). In the instant case, the undercover officer's description of the defendant, coupled with the arresting officer's expertise and the defendant's close proximity to the scene of the crime, when viewed together, were sufficient to provide the arresting officer with probable cause to arrest (see, People v Brown, 173 A.D.2d 629; People v Dawkins, 163 A.D.2d 322).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.