Opinion
September 18, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The description transmitted from the officer observing the undercover decoy to the arresting officer was sufficient in detail in light of the fact that it had been made just seconds before the arrest at the end of the subway ramp on which the crime had occurred ( see, People v. Carmona, 172 A.D.2d 151, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 963). The receiving officer also recounted the description under which he acted. Defendant's argument that the People were required to also introduce the arresting officer's description of defendant's appearance at the time of his arrest is unpreserved and, in any event, would not warrant reversal in the circumstances here presented ( People v. Santana, 235 A.D.2d 220, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1100; People v. Cintron, 232 A.D.2d 192).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Colabella, JJ.