Opinion
June 7, 1991
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his motion to suppress the identification testimony of Francine Bunton, a witness, was improperly denied. We disagree. The suppression court properly found that the procedure employed here was merely confirmatory in view of the fact that the witness had seen defendant on several prior occasions and knew him by another name (see, People v Green, 155 A.D.2d 880, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 813; People v Suren, 131 A.D.2d 896, 897, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 804; People v Johnson, 124 A.D.2d 748, 749, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 713). Thus, defendant's argument of suggestiveness is not relevant here (see, People v Fleming, 109 A.D.2d 848, 849).
Defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the admission of certain preliminary hearing testimony of Francine Bunton (see, CPL 670.10, 670.20 Crim. Proc.; People v Arroyo, 54 N.Y.2d 567, cert denied 456 U.S. 979; People v Nettles, 118 A.D.2d 875, 876, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 671), by prosecutorial misconduct during summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396), and by the trial court's response to the jury's inquiry regarding Francine Bunton's absence at the trial is lacking in merit.