Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, it was unnecessary to hold a Wade hearing to determine the question of whether the undercover officer's post arrest viewing of the defendant constituted an improper identification procedure or was merely a confirmation of a previously established identification. Recognizing the expertise of police officers in identification situations, the facts of this case do not suggest any reasonable possibility that the officer's in-court identification of the defendant might have been influenced by the showup identification at the precinct which took place about two hours after the drug sale (see, People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 922-923; People v London, 160 A.D.2d 734, 735; cf., People v Baron, 159 A.D.2d 710, 711).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.