| People v Adio |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07496 [111 AD3d 757] |
| November 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Zakari Adio, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Rosalind C. Gray of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Cohen, J.), rendered June 27, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up forreview the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
An undercover police officer viewed a single photograph of the defendant, who wassuspected of selling controlled substances, before purchasing crack cocaine from thedefendant. Shortly after the drug transaction, the officer viewed the defendant'sphotograph again and confirmed to fellow officers that it depicted the drug seller.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the officer's viewing of a single photographof the defendant prior to purchasing crack cocaine from him did not constitute anidentification (see People vGreen, 90 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2011]; People v Diakite, 296 AD2d 655,656 [2002]). Furthermore, the officer's viewing of the defendant's photograph shortlyafter the purchase was confirmatory (see People v Andrews, 30 AD3d 434, 435 [2006]; People v Soto, 22 AD3d511 [2005]; People v Montgomery, 213 AD2d 563 [1995]). Thus, theCounty Court properly found that the defendant was not subjected to impermissiblysuggestive identification procedures, and properly denied that branch of his omnibusmotion which was to suppress identification testimony.
The defendant's contentions regarding the plea allocution are unpreserved forappellate review (see People vGuy, 95 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2012]). In any event, the plea proceeding conductedby the prosecutor in the presence of the County Court and defense counsel was not anabrogation of the court's responsibility (see People v Martinez, 97 AD3d 605 [2012]; People v Bethune, 91 AD3d966, 966-967 [2012]). Furthermore, the facts admitted by the defendant during hisplea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty to the crimes charged (see People v Martinez, 97AD3d 605 [2012]).[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Dillon,J.P., Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.