Opinion
December 30, 1992
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.
Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the court erred in summarily denying his motion to suppress the identification testimony of one of the victims, Robert Nuchereno, because the bank security investigator who showed the photographs of defendant to Nuchereno was acting as a police agent. We disagree. The investigator acted on his own both in preparing the photographs taken from the surveillance machines and in making arrangements to show those photographs to Nuchereno. There was no police involvement or participation in showing the photographs to the victim. None of the indicia that transform private conduct into State action was present here (see, People v Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282, 286). Because the bank security investigator's conduct was not a police-arranged confrontation between defendant and a victim, the court properly ruled that there was no need to conduct a Wade hearing (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552; People v Samuels, 162 A.D.2d 559; People v Thornton, 157 A.D.2d 758, 759, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 744; People v Medina, 111 A.D.2d 190, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 984).
Further, we reject defendant's contention that, under the circumstances of this case, he was entitled to a "` Wade-type hearing'" to determine the reliability of Nuchereno's identification testimony (People v Blackman, 110 A.D.2d 596, 597, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 813). In light of the strength of Nuchereno's identification testimony, the court properly exercised its discretion to deny defendant's motion seeking that relief.
Defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in receiving the rebuttal testimony given by defendant's former employer (see, CPL 470.05). Finally, we have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in defendant's supplemental pro se brief, and we conclude that none requires reversal.