Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied upon evidence that the undercover officer, within moments of the sale, transmitted to the entire backup team exact descriptions of the two sellers; that one of the sellers, codefendant, was apprehended moments later near the location of the sale by the officer who testified at the hearing; that the other seller, defendant, was apprehended at the exact location of the sale by another officer who did not testify; and that a confirmatory identification by the undercover officer followed minutes after the apprehensions. Such evidence permits no other inference but that both apprehending officers had simultaneously heard the identical radio transmission from the undercover officer and acted in response thereto in apprehending the suspects. The testimony of the officer who had apprehended defendant was therefore unnecessary ( see, Matter of Robert S., 159 A.D.2d 358, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 770).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.