Defendant's acquittal of the sale count does not make his conviction of possession with intent to sell against the weight of the evidence, where he was the only person who matched the description transmitted by the undercover officer to the field team, and was arrested one block from where the alleged sale took place in possession of the same color glassines as those allegedly purchased by the undercover ( see, People v Ortiz, 170 A.D.2d 396, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 998; see also, People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7). Defendant's claim that the court did not conduct a sufficiently probing inquiry of an allegedly unqualified juror is unpreserved ( see, People v Jackson, 209 A.D.2d 247, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 974), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied upon proof of a description of the seller transmitted by the undercover officer that was sufficient to enable the arresting officer to reasonably conclude that defendant was the person described ( People v Acevedo, 181 A.D.2d 596, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1045).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.