Opinion
May 23, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the evidence adduced at the Wade hearing reveals that the identification procedures were neither improperly conducted nor unduly suggestive (see, People v Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740; People v Burwell, 26 N.Y.2d 331; People v McCoy, 131 A.D.2d 787). The hearing record also supports the alternative conclusion that the complainant's recollection of the defendant as one of her assailants had a source independent of any photographic identification (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 192, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020, rearg dismissed 27 N.Y.2d 737; People v Barksdale, 133 A.D.2d 770, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 1003).
We further conclude that, viewed in its entirety, the alibi instruction properly conveyed the relevant principles of law to the jury (see, e.g., People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830; People v Hydleburg, 127 A.D.2d 792, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 648). The trial court was not required to marshal or refer to the evidence to any extent greater than was necessary to explain the application of the law to the facts (CPL 300.10). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.