| People v Rumble |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01825 [60 AD3d 791] |
| March 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dwayne Rumble, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas S. Burka,and Anita T. Channapati of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mullen, J.),rendered March 14, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physicalevidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him is withoutmerit. The defendant was arrested close to the location where an undercover officer observedhim making three apparent drug sales, minutes after that officer transmitted the defendant'sdescription by radio to other officers. He was wearing the attire that the officer had describedwhen he was stopped, in the middle of the night, in an area with minimal pedestrian andvehicular traffic (see People v Williams, 170 AD2d 629 [1991]; People vZarzuela, 141 AD2d 788 [1988]). Additionally, although the defendant contends that theofficer who detained him prior to his arrest by a different officer had no basis for stopping him,under the circumstances of this case it can be inferred that the detaining officer was acting at thedirection of the undercover officer (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 114[1996]; see also People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 421 [1999]). Moreover, the Peoplewere not required to produce the undercover officer, rather than the arresting officer, at thehearing (see People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47, 51-52 [1984], cert denied 469 US852 [1984]; People v Green, 13AD3d 646 [2004]). Accordingly, the court properly declined to suppress the physicalevidence seized following the defendant's arrest.[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved forappellate review (see People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600 [1978]; People v Beauliere, 36 AD3d 623[2007]; People v Waldron, 162 AD2d 485, 486 [1990]) and, in any event, is withoutmerit (see People v White, 41AD3d 1036 [2007]; People v Castellanos, 234 AD2d 381 [1996]; People vBudhai, 182 AD2d 693 [1992]). Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.