Opinion
August 31, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the identification by a trained undercover police officer who had observed him in a face-to-face sale of narcotics, then again minutes after his arrest, and then 45 minutes later at the stationhouse, is not the kind of identification procedure ordinarily burdened or compromised by suggestiveness so as to warrant a Wade hearing ( see, People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921). Furthermore, the strategic choice of the defendant's attorney that the defendant would not testify before the Grand Jury did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Foy, 220 A.D.2d 220).
Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.