PEOPLE v. MOTA

Defendant's claim that the court erred in not suppressing the undercover officer's confirmatory identification of defendant is not preserved by appropriate argument at the hearing ( People v Brimage, 214 A.D.2d 454, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 732), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.

The existing record, which defendant has not yet sought to amplify by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, does not negate all possible explanations for counsel's failure to present specific arguments regarding the suppression issues in question ( People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Colabella, JJ.