PEOPLE v. RAMPERSANT

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenneth Lee RAMPERSANT, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: May 18, 2000

ELLERIN, J.P., WALLACH, LERNER and SAXE, JJ. Sangeeta Prasad, for Respondent. Ellen Sue Handman, for Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J., at hearing;  John Bradley, J., at plea and sentence), rendered November 16, 1998, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 1/212 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

 Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied.   The observing officer's transmission established probable cause for defendant's arrest.   The description of a black man wearing a bright yellow jacket and black pants was sufficiently specific, particularly since defendant was arrested at the specified location shortly after the drug sale and was the only person present matching the description (see, People v. Acevedo, 181 A.D.2d 596, 581 N.Y.S.2d 334, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 1045, 584 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 596 N.E.2d 411;  People v. Moczo, 174 A.D.2d 365, 570 N.Y.S.2d 572, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1013, 575 N.Y.S.2d 821, 581 N.E.2d 1067).

 Defendant's request for a Wade hearing was properly denied (see, People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 550 N.Y.S.2d 260, 549 N.E.2d 462).   The planned, expected identification by a police officer, minutes after observing defendant engage in a drug transaction, was a confirmatory police procedure (see, People v. Broadwater, 248 A.D.2d 719, 671 N.Y.S.2d 99, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 848, 677 N.Y.S.2d 78, 699 N.E.2d 438;  People v. Cordero, 227 A.D.2d 290, 643 N.Y.S.2d 48, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1020, 651 N.Y.S.2d 19, 673 N.E.2d 1246;  People v. Perez, 202 A.D.2d 319, 609 N.Y.S.2d 207, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 914, 614 N.Y.S.2d 396, 637 N.E.2d 287) for which a Wade hearing was not required.   Unlike the situation where there is an extended delay in identification, the fact that the officer observed from a distance rather than in a face-to-face undercover transaction does not raise an issue of suggestiveness rendering Wharton inapplicable (cf., People v. Mato, 83 N.Y.2d 406, 410, 611 N.Y.S.2d 92, 633 N.E.2d 446).

 We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.