Opinion
April 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We do not agree with the defendant's claim that the hearing court erred in finding that there was probable cause for his arrest. The determination of the hearing court, which had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v. Mason, 152 A.D.2d 750, 751). Here, the defendant sold a quantity of cocaine to an undercover officer during a "buy and bust" operation. The undercover officer promptly transmitted the defendant's description to the arresting officer who could properly rely upon it in making the arrest within a few minutes thereafter (see, People v. Williams, 146 A.D.2d 724). The record supports the hearing court's resolution of the credibility issues and its determination that the defendant fit the description of the seller of the drugs transmitted by the undercover officer to the arresting officer.
Further, the court's denial of the defendant's request for a Wade hearing was proper inasmuch as the undercover agent's viewing occurred only minutes after the arrest was made for the purpose of confirming that the right person was arrested. Thus, as the viewing was not a police-arranged identification procedure, no Wade hearing was required (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Wharton, 143 A.D.2d 958, affd 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v. Davis, 141 A.D.2d 831; People v Leacraft, 128 A.D.2d 640; People v. Marrero, 110 A.D.2d 785).
In addition, at the time the guilty plea was entered, the court expressly warned the defendant that if he failed to appear on the date set for sentencing, then the court would not only proceed to sentence him in his absence but also to impose a greater sentence than originally promised. The defendant clearly stated on the record that he fully understood the consequences of his failure to appear for sentencing. Thus, he cannot now complain that the court proceeded to sentence him in absentia, since he failed to appear as required, and diligent efforts to locate him failed (see, People v. Christopher R., 135 A.D.2d 584; People v. Davis, 106 A.D.2d 657; cf., People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136). The sentence imposed was neither a violation of the plea agreement nor excessive (see, People v. Betheny, 147 A.D.2d 488; People v Baessler, 142 A.D.2d 585; see also, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.