Opinion
March 12, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Donald J. Mark, J.).
Defendant was arrested as a result of a face to face sale of narcotics to an undercover police officer which sale was consummated by the use of a co-defendant who acted as an intermediary. The arrest was made within five minutes after the undercover police officer transmitted in defendant's description to his backup team, and the record does not support defendant's contention that the confirmatory identification made by the undercover officer at the station house, within two hours after the arrest, was tainted by any suggestiveness which would require a hearing pursuant to United States v Wade ( 388 U.S. 218). The identification made by the trained undercover professional in this case constitutes the type of confirmatory identification upheld without the necessity for a Wade hearing (People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Stanton, 108 A.D.2d 688; cf., People v Gordon, 76 N.Y.2d 595).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.