Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The radioed description of defendant, which included a detailed clothing description, was sufficiently specific to provide probable cause to arrest despite the passage of about 45 minutes from the drug transaction, since no one else nearby matched the description (see People v. Rampersant, 272 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 870). At the very least, the police had reasonable suspicion upon which to detain defendant pending a confirmatory identification. Contrary to defendant's argument, the evidence warranted a reasonable inference that the confirmatory identification was made by an officer with personal knowledge of the fact that defendant had sold drugs (see People v. Ketcham, 93 N.Y.2d 416).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.