| People v Pacquette |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08004 [112 AD3d 405] |
| December 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dean Pacquette, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Brian R. Pouliot of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), renderedJune 11, 2008, as amended March 6, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a termof five years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Moreover, the evidence was overwhelming. There isno basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility and identification.Among other things, the evidence included the recovery of prerecorded buy money fromdefendant, notwithstanding defendant's implausible explanation for that fact.
The court properly determined that an identification made by an officer other thanthe purchasing undercover officer was confirmatory and thus did not require CPL 710.30(1) (b) notice (see People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921 [1989]). The requirements ofa police confirmatory identification were met, in that the officer at issue carefullyobserved defendant at close range throughout the drug transaction and made a promptidentification as part of a planned procedure (see People v Houston, 47 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2008],lv denied 10 NY3d 841 [2008]; compare People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427 [2006]). The officeralso transmitted a detailed and accurate description of defendant. In any event, any errorwas harmless because this officer's [*2]identification ofdefendant was cumulative to that of the undercover officer, and it added little to thePeople's otherwise overwhelming case (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230[1975]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe,DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.