Opinion
March 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).
As this Court previously determined on codefendant's appeal, the "motion to suppress was properly denied. The arresting officer's fear that defendant and her companions would destroy the contraband was reasonable. * * * Even if the officers could have devised a better plan to arrest the codefendant [the defendant in this appeal], the officers' lack of foresight made the urgency no less a reality" (People v. Rodriguez, 170 A.D.2d 303, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 966).
We also find that the identification of defendant, two hours after he had been arrested, by an officer who had previously observed defendant during the ongoing investigatory surveillance was merely confirmatory and did not warrant a Wade hearing (see, People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.