Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The photographic identification of the defendant was made by two trained, undercover police officers who, approximately two hours earlier, observed him during their face-to-face drug purchase transactions. Under these circumstances, the hearing court properly concluded that the single-photo identification was merely confirmatory ( see, People v. Montgomery, 88 N.Y.2d 926; People v. Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218; People v. Lane, 185 A.D.2d 282; People v. Polanco, 179 A.D.2d 531). Accordingly, the court did not err in summarily denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the officers' identification testimony.
In view of our determination with respect to the defendant's conviction under Indictment No. 94-181, there is no basis for vacatur of his plea under Indictment NO. 94-270 ( cf., People v Clark, 45 N.Y.2d 432).
Ritter, J. P., Copertino, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.