Majority
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that County Court erred in admitting identification testimony of a police officer who observed him sell heroin to an undercover officer during a "buy-bust” operation because the People failed to serve a CPL 710.30 notice advising defendant of such testimony. The court properly found that the officer’s identification of defendant at the prearranged meeting place a short time after the "buy-bust” occurred was merely confirmatory and, therefore, not subject to CPL 710.30 requirements (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 , 449; People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921 , 922-923; People v Reed, 197 AD2d 866 , lv denied 82 NY2d 901 ; People v Guzman, 197 AD2d 705 , lv denied 82 NY2d 896 ). Thus, no Wade hearing was required (see, People v Wharton, supra; People v Polanco, 179 AD2d 531 , 532-533, affd 80 NY2d 1012 ).
We agree with defendant that the People’s failure to disclose
Cases cited
- People v. Rodriguez 79 NY2d 445 at 449 p. 965
- People v. Wharton 74 NY2d 921 at 922-923 p. 965
- People v. Polanco 179 AD2d 531 at 532-533 p. 965
- People v. Herrera 136 AD2d 567 at 568 p. 966