Opinion
September 24, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cohen, J.).
Family Court properly denied appellant's motion for a Wade hearing. "In cases in which the defendant's identity is not in issue, or those in which the protagonists are known to one another, `suggestiveness' is not a concern" in in-court identifications predicated on earlier police-arranged identification procedures, such as photographs (People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552). Here, during a five-minute encounter during which the complainant had ample opportunity to observe appellant, the complainant recognized appellant by his unusual hairstyle, having previously seen him approximately 14 times in the year prior to the incident at the junior high school they both attended. The complainant also had identified appellant to the dean of the school. Thus, the photographic viewing was merely confirmatory.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.