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,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.