Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The description of the suspect relayed by the undercover officer to his backup team, which arrested the defendant on the scene within minutes of the narcotics transaction, was sufficiently detailed to provide probable cause to believe that he was the individual who committed the crime (see, People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248; People v. Witherspoon, 115 A.D.2d 572; cf., People v. White, 117 A.D.2d 127). Further, we find that the prompt on-the-scene confirmatory showup identification of the defendant by the undercover officer was consistent with good police procedure, and was not an identification procedure which warranted a Wade hearing (see, People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262; People v. Stanton, 108 A.D.2d 688; cf., People v. Rubio, 118 A.D.2d 879, after remittitur 133 A.D.2d 475 [station house identification by undercover officer 27 days after the crime]).
The defendant's sentence was imposed in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain agreement and we see no basis for disturbing it on appeal (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Similarly we see no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of the defendant's request for a waiver of the mandatory surcharge (Penal Law § 60.35). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.