Opinion
November 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that his request for a Wade hearing was improperly denied. The undercover officer's station house identification of the defendant, which occurred approximately four hours after the drug transaction, was sufficiently connected to and contemporaneous with the defendant's arrest to be merely confirmatory in nature (see, People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Roberts, 79 N.Y.2d 964; People v Davis, 141 A.D.2d 831; cf., People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445).
In addition, we find the defendant's contention that the trial court improperly denied his request for a one-day adjournment to be without merit. The defense counsel requested the adjournment immediately prior to the close of the prosecution's case so that he might try to engage an expert witness to challenge the conclusions of the police chemist. Since the witness was unidentified, any argument as to the relevancy and materiality of the testimony is merely speculative (see, People v Santos, 179 A.D.2d 790, 791; People v Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 632, 633). In addition, the approximately nine-month period between the defendant's arrest and the trial afforded the defense counsel ample opportunity to obtain an independent analysis of the contents of the envelopes purchased from the defendant. We therefore find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request for an adjournment (see, People v Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473, 476; People v Santos, supra). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.