Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), the evidence was legally sufficient since an encounter during a buy and bust operation which lasts only a few minutes provides an adequate opportunity to observe the defendant's appearance, especially where the officer's reliability is assured by a drive-by identification minutes after the sale (see, People v Padilla, 190 A.D.2d 639). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the credible evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The credibility of the testimony of the undercover officer and the accuracy of his identification were for the jury to resolve (People v Jenkins, 164 A.D.2d 770, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 894), and the failure to recover the prerecorded buy money is not dispositive (People v Bobbitt, 180 A.D.2d 489, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1046).
Nor were the defendants entitled to a Wade hearing since the drive-by identification was only confirmatory (see, People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921).
Finally, none of the claims concerning the trial court's conduct or charge and the prosecutor's summation was preserved for review by appropriate objection at trial (CPL 470.05), and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. Were we to reach them, we would find that defendants were afforded a fair trial.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.