PEOPLE v. BYRD (2005)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1] ) and criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree (§ 221.40).   Defendant contends that reversal is required because Supreme Court erred in admitting testimony explaining why the pre-recorded “buy” money was not discovered on his person when he was arrested.   We note that defendant objected to the testimony of only one of the three police officers who so testified at trial.   In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention is preserved for our review, we conclude that any error in the admission of the testimony is harmless.   The evidence of defendant's guilt apart from that testimony is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that defendant otherwise would have been acquitted (see People v. Smith, 2 N.Y.3d 8, 12-13, 776 N.Y.S.2d 209, 808 N.E.2d 344;  People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

 We reject the further contention of defendant that the court erred in refusing to conduct either a Wade or a Rodriguez hearing.   Neither hearing is required in a classic “buy and bust” operation where, as here, a confirmatory identification procedure is immediately conducted by an undercover officer within minutes after the sale of drugs to the undercover officer (see People v. Stubbs, 6 A.D.3d 1109, 775 N.Y.S.2d 740, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 663, 782 N.Y.S.2d 705, 816 N.E.2d 578;  People v. Blocker, 309 A.D.2d 1240, 765 N.Y.S.2d 540, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 568, 775 N.Y.S.2d 785, 807 N.E.2d 898;  People v. Cuthrell, 284 A.D.2d 982, 983, 726 N.Y.S.2d 903).   Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: