Opinion
November 17, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.).
A review of the record demonstrates that there was an independent source for the complainant's in-court identification of appellant based on the complainant's observation of appellant at close range for two to three minutes in full daylight during the robbery ( People v. Cates, 245 A.D.2d 31, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 940; People v. Santos, 202 A.D.2d 258, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 1007). Furthermore, the complainant had seen appellant at school numerous times, and had heard appellant's name called by teachers in the school halls. We find nothing inconsistent about the court's conclusion that even if the complainant's prior knowledge of appellant did not rise to the level of obviating a Wade hearing altogether ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445), such knowledge was still highly probative of independent source ( see, People v. Brown, 34 N.Y.2d 879).
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.