Opinion
February 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.).
Whether the accused acted as an agent of the buyer is a question of fact for the jury, and that determination, made "on broad grounds not susceptible of meticulous definition" (People v Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 87), will not be disturbed where defendant's connection to his co-defendant is supported by sufficient evidence. Among other things, defendant's willing acceptance of payment from the undercover officer, despite the co-defendant's concern that the area was "hot", established that defendant was not a mere agent.
We also find no merit to defendant's claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress. At the hearing, defendant argued that he was seized "on a shred," but the relative distinctiveness of his clothing and that of his co-defendant establishes that the arresting officer acted on descriptions of sufficient detail. (People v Bruce, 78 A.D.2d 169, 173.)
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.