PEOPLE v. ROSELLO

Notice pursuant to CPL 730.10(1)(b) was not required for the confirmatory identification made by the "ghost" undercover officer in this buy-and-bust operation. There is no basis upon which to distinguish a confirmatory identification made by a "ghost" from one made by a purchasing undercover officer (People v. Cordero, 227 A.D.2d 290, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 1020; see also People v. Roberts, 79 N.Y.2d 964).

A contemporaneous uncharged drug sale was properly admitted to prove that defendant acted in concert in the charged sale and possessed drugs with intent to sell (see People v. Garcia, 276 A.D.2d 270, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 963).

The challenged portions of the People's summation were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in proper response to the defense summation, and any prejudice was prevented by the court's curative actions (see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.