Opinion
March 26, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Queens County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.
Under the circumstances, the question of whether the undercover officer's postarrest viewing of the defendant constituted an improper identification procedure or confirmation of a previously established identification should not have been determined without a Wade hearing. Notwithstanding the recognized expertise of police officers in identification situations, the facts in this case suggest the reasonable possibility that the undercover officer's in-court identification of the defendant may have been influenced by the showup identification which took place at the time of the defendant's arrest, a week after the officer had last seen him (see, People v Rubio, 118 A.D.2d 879; People v Wright, 47 A.D.2d 894; cf., People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Hill, 147 A.D.2d 500).
We reach no other issues at this juncture. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.