Opinion
March 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence that defendant sold drugs to the undercover officer who gave a detailed description of defendant to the arresting officer and then confirmed defendant's identity in a drive-by, and that defendant was arrested with the prerecorded buy money in his possession. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the determination was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, including those that arose from defendant's testimony concerning how he came to possess the buy money, were properly placed before the jury, and, after considering the relative force of the conflicting testimony and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we find no reason on the record before us to disturb its determination.
The testimony of the arresting officer at the suppression hearing that the undercover officer gave him a detailed description of defendant after purchasing drugs from him, and that defendant matched the description, established probable cause (see, People v. Hernandez, 189 A.D.2d 634, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 887).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.