Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established that the police possessed probable cause for his arrest. Probable cause exists when a police officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances "sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed" ( People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423; see also, People v Starr, 221 AD2d 488). Moreover, under the "fellow officer" rule, "even if an arresting officer lacks personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, the arrest will be lawful if the officer `acts upon the direction of or as a result of communication with a superior or [fellow] officer * * * provided that the police as a whole were in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause to make the arrest'" ( People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 113, quoting People v Horowitz, 21 NY2d 55, 60). Here, the arresting officer acted on the basis of a radio transmission from an undercover officer who had minutes earlier purchased narcotics from the defendant and another individual. Since the evidence demonstrated that the under-cover officer personally witnessed the illegal narcotics transaction, the People's proof, if credited, was sufficient to establish probable cause for the defendant's arrest ( see, People v Washington, 87 NY2d 945, 946-947; People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47, 51-52). Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the arrest of the defendant was lawful and thus the hearing court properly denied suppression of the money ( see, People v Starr, supra; People v Pegram, 203 AD2d 391).
The defendant's remaining contention does not warrant reversal ( see, People v Moran, 123 AD2d 646).