The arresting officer's testimony to the effect that the undercover officer confirmed defendant as the seller in a post-buy drive-by did not, in the context of this buy-and-bust case, constitute impermissible bolstering of the undercover's own testimony concerning his drive-by confirmatory identification, and was properly admitted as providing a necessary explanation of the events that precipitated defendant's arrest (see, People v Sarmiento, 168 A.D.2d 328, 329, affd 77 N.Y.2d 976). The jury was also properly instructed to consider the undercover officer's testimony in relation to the sale.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.