Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that a police officer impermissibly bolstered the prosecution's identification testimony by testifying that the undercover officer who had purchased the drugs confirmed through a radio communication that the defendant, who had been taken into custody near the scene of the crime, was the person who had sold him the drugs. However, because the defendant was already under arrest at the time of this communication any bolstering effect was minimal (see, People v Reynolds, 169 A.D.2d 740). Furthermore, any error in the admission of such bolstering testimony must be deemed harmless in light of the ample opportunity which the undercover officer had to observe the defendant during the commission of the crime and the undercover officer's strong identification testimony (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969, 970-971; People v Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584; People v Hawthorne, 175 A.D.2d 880). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.