Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The undercover officer's testimony regarding the description of the seller which he gave to the arresting officers by radio does not constitute bolstering in violation of People v Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471; see, People v Cardona, 173 A.D.2d 364; People v Sarmiento, 168 A.D.2d 328, affd 77 N.Y.2d 976; People v Candelario, 156 A.D.2d 191; People v Switzer, 115 A.D.2d 673, 674; People v Love, 92 A.D.2d 551, 553). This testimony together with that of the arresting officers who received the description, provides a necessary explanation of the events which precipitated the defendant's arrest (see, People v Sarmiento, supra).
The undercover officer observed the defendant face-to-face during the drug transaction. Immediately thereafter the backup officers took a photograph of the defendant and within an hour displayed the photograph to the undercover officer to insure that the right person would be arrested. Under these circumstances a Wade hearing was not necessary (see, People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 922; People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445, 449; cf., People v Waring, 183 A.D.2d 271).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819; People v Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.