Opinion
June 13, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
It is clear that a defendant may waive his presence at a felony hearing or move for suppression of an identification which occurred at a felony hearing (see, People v Cummings, 109 A.D.2d 748; People v James, 100 A.D.2d 552). However, inasmuch as no issue existed as to identification since the complainant knew the defendant and, indeed, identified him to the police by name (see, People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543) and the complainant did not testify at the trial regarding her identification of the defendant at the felony hearing, any error in the hearing court's denial of the defendant's requests to absent himself from the felony hearing and in the denial of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was for suppression of the identification made at the felony hearing was harmless (see, People v James, supra).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
We have considered the remainder of the defendant's contentions, including those asserted in the supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for our review or without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.