Judgment affirmed.
Defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the in-court identification made by the undercover detective was impermissibly bolstered by the testimony of the arresting officer (see, CPL 470.05; People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818), and the interest of justice does not warrant a reversal since any bolstering which may have occurred was harmless in light of other evidence of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584; People v Echeveria-Brand, 100 A.D.2d 974; People v Gilley, 91 A.D.2d 1073). Defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor improperly remarked in summation that it had "been established without any controversion" that defendant sold a quantity of cocaine to the undercover detective (see, People v Nuccie, supra; People v Gonzalez, 102 A.D.2d 895). In any event, the remark did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Johnson, 104 A.D.2d 453; People v Jones, 104 A.D.2d 706).
The trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a Wade hearing (see, CPL 710.20; United States v Wade, 388 U.S. 218). The identification of defendant by the undercover detective was clearly admissible since the detective's second meeting with defendant at the time of the arrest was not a police-arranged confrontation for the purpose of establishing defendant's identification (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552; People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 606; People v Marrero, 110 A.D.2d 785).
By order of this court dated September 18, 1985, defendant was instructed to serve and file his pro se supplemental brief on or before October 21, 1985 if he wished to have any additional contentions considered. No such brief has been submitted. O'Connor, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.