Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Probable cause was established by the arresting officer's testimony that the purchasing undercover officer transmitted a "positive" buy signal involving "three individuals" and giving the suspects' location, along with descriptions whose sufficiency is not in dispute. As we stated in People v. Acevedo ( 179 A.D.2d 465, 467, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 996), "[t]here is no merit to defendant's contention that because the undercover officer implicated [several] persons in his transmission, the prosecution was obligated to call him as a witness to establish that the behavior which he had observed supported his statement that [each of the] men had participated in the sale." (_see also, People v. Stokes, 271 A.D.2d 237, 708 N.Y.S.2d 54;People v. Amoateng, 141 A.D.2d 398, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 852). The arresting officer was entitled to rely on his fellow officer's succinct statement that he had made an undercover buy and personally observed conduct establishing that three individuals were participants in the sale. The fact that several persons were involved did not raise "substantial issues relating to the validity of the arrest." (People v. Petralia_, 62 N.Y.2d 47, 52, cert denied 469 U.S. 852).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.