Defendant was convicted of selling one glassine envelope of heroin to an undercover officer. The evidence produced at the suppression hearing showed that defendant was promptly arrested after the undercover officer radioed that the transaction had been concluded. Accordingly, there is no merit to defendant's claim that his arrest was not supported by probable cause (People v. Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; People v. Amoateng, 141 A.D.2d 398 [1st Dept 1988], lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 852) or that the confirmatory showup was suggestive (People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262).
We further conclude that the Sandoval ruling was not an abuse of discretion. Nor was the defendant prejudiced by the prosecutor's summation which was a fair response to that of the defendant's counsel.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.