Opinion
February 11, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the court did not err when it denied the defendant's motion for a Wade hearing. The denial of a formal Wade hearing was made only after the court heard testimony from an eyewitness that he had known the defendant by his nickname "I God" for about 4 or 5 years. The court also considered the defendant's contention that the eyewitness could not have known him well as the defendant had been incarcerated for a substantial portion of the 5-year period. After hearing the testimony of the eyewitness, the court determined that the eyewitness had known the defendant for approximately four years prior to the commission of the crimes at bar. Consequently, the court ruled that there was no need for a formal Wade hearing concerning the photographic identification of the defendant by the eyewitness, as that identification was merely confirmatory. Issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court and its findings should be upheld unless clearly erroneous (see, People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726).
We also find that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's pretrial motion for severance pursuant to CPL 200.40. It was not necessary for the trial court to sever the indictment in order to ensure that the defendant was availed of effective protection from cross-examination by his codefendants as to his criminal history. The trial court properly exercised its discretion by restricting the scope of such cross examination to "good faith questions" (see, People v Williams, 142 A.D.2d 310, 315).
We note that the defendant's claim that severance was required because the defense of the codefendant Arthur Brodie (whose appeal is decided herewith) was antagonistic to his defense, is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, such contention is without merit (see, People v Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 184-185; see also, People v Brodie [Arthur], 170 A.D.2d 518 [decided herewith]).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.