Defendant was arrested following a "buy and bust" operation, when he and co-defendant Calderon were observed by an undercover police officer hawking heroin on the street. At trial, the arresting officer testified that immediately subsequent to the arrest the undercover officer had made a drive-by identification, confirming that the correct suspects were in custody.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury's findings of credibility (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that defendant's guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. Defendant's bolstering claim is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Hendricks, 159 A.D.2d 396, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 736). Were we to review it in the interest of justice, we would find the claim to be without merit. Police testimony concerning the execution of a "buy and bust" operation is permissible and does not constitute improper bolstering when the identification testimony is provided by a trained undercover officer, after a face-to-face drug transaction, and another officer testifies as to what he observed at the scene, including the drive-by confirmatory identification. (People v. Hendricks, supra; People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 922-923.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.