Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that testimony as to the defendant's identification at a station house showup and in court, both made by a trained undercover police officer, was properly admitted. At the suppression hearing, the undercover officer testified that he had purchased cocaine from the defendant, and that the transaction lasted approximately two minutes. There was ample lighting and the officer had had a prior acquaintanceship with the defendant. The officer further testified that the defendant was not arrested at that time so that a search warrant could be obtained. Three months later, at a station house showup, the officer identified the defendant as the individual from whom he had purchased the cocaine. Under these circumstances, the station house showup was more in the nature of a confirmatory viewing than an identification (see, People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262; People v. Welker, 150 A.D.2d 515; People v. Francis, 139 A.D.2d 527).
Finally, we find that the sentence was not excessive. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.