The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The police had, at the very least, reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for a confirmatory identification by an undercover officer, since defendant fit the description of a person who had sold drugs to the undercover officer moments before and was discovered in the very spot described by that officer. The description, which featured a particular article of clothing, was sufficiently specific, given the close spatial and temporal factors and the fact that defendant was the only person present who met the description ( see e.g. People v. Rampersant, 272 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 870).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.