Opinion
June 24, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
Defendant contends that the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress identification testimony and complains that the People did not present the complaining witness to testify at the Wade hearing. He suggests that this deprived his counsel of the opportunity to question the witness as to his powers of observation and recollection, and as to the lighting conditions at the time of the alleged crime. This contention must be rejected. There is no automatic rule which requires that a complaining witness testify at a Wade hearing ( see, People v Ward, 95 A.D.2d 233; People v. Blue, 37 A.D.2d 581, affd 31 N.Y.2d 1002).
Neither do we find any merit to defendant's claim that the guilty pleas were defective because the court did not adequately question him as to whether he understood the rights which he was waiving as a result of his pleas. Defendant failed to raise this objection in the court of first instance and the issue has therefore not been preserved for our review as a matter of law ( People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Pascale, 48 N.Y.2d 997). In any event, even if we were to consider his claim, we would find it to be meritless. Defendant indicated that he made the decision to plead guilty after discussing the matter with his lawyer, and after consideration of the lenient sentences offered in exchange for his pleas, which were the minimum authorized by statute. It is clear from the record that defendant's pleas were entered knowingly, voluntarily, and with an understanding of the consequences ( see, People v. Jones, 109 A.D.2d 893).
Defendant's other contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.