Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court did not err in denying the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the undercover officer's identification of a photograph of the defendant. The record indicates that the identification was made by a trained police officer who had viewed the defendant for several minutes during the January 11, 1993, hand-to-hand transaction. In addition, the officer had seen the defendant on the street on prior occasions. Therefore, the officer's identification of a photograph of the defendant shortly after concluding the transaction was merely confirmatory in nature ( see, People v Montgomery, 213 A.D.2d 563, lv granted 86 N.Y.2d 798; People v Harrison, 210 A.D.2d 348; People v Lane, 185 A.D.2d 282; People v Almonte, 181 A.D.2d 736; People v Johnson, 173 A.D.2d 734).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.