Opinion
October 5, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
With regard to the judgment of conviction under indictment No. 2047/82, having failed to introduce evidence at his Huntley hearing that he was in fact represented by counsel at the time of his arrest and questioning by the police, the defendant's claim that his waiver of the right to counsel was improper is not reviewable by this court (see, People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772, 774; People v. Jones, 114 A.D.2d 974, 975, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 653). Further, the defendant's failure to meet his burden of proof on this issue is not a ground for a new hearing on this subject (see, People v. Quarles, 63 N.Y.2d 923, 925; People v Ryans, 118 A.D.2d 741). The defendant's other contention raised on appeal from the judgment, that he was denied his right to counsel during a lineup conducted by the police and an Assistant District Attorney, may not be reviewed for failure of the defendant to establish a sufficient record at his hearing. In any event, this contention is without merit as no counsel for the defendant was required at the lineup as it was conducted at an investigatory stage of the proceedings and before adversarial proceedings had commenced (see, People v. Hawkins, 55 N.Y.2d 474, 486-487, cert denied 459 U.S. 846; People v. Jones, supra, at 975).
With regard to the appeals from the judgments of conviction under indictments Nos. 2156/82, 2225/82, and 2606/82, we have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant's assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on those appeals. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel on those appeals is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 U.S. 738; People v. Paige, 54 A.D.2d 631; cf., People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.