Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Probable cause to arrest was based on the detailed description and location transmitted to the backup team by the undercover officer and the second transmission confirming that the right person had been apprehended. Although there was no testimony that the undercover officer used the expression "positive buy" or any other such signal that a drug transaction had transpired (see, People v. Maldonado, 86 N.Y.2d 631, 636), the record supports the court's finding that, because of the particular nature and purpose of a "buy and bust" operation, the backup officers could reasonably infer that a communication from an undercover officer providing a description and location was intended to convey that a drug transaction involving said person took place at that location (see, People v. Fulton, 176 A.D.2d 130, lv denied, 79 N.Y.2d 857). There would be no other reason under these circumstances for the undercover officer to transmit a description.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.