Opinion
April 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Any error in reopening the Wade hearing during trial at the People's request to determine whether there was an independent source for the witnesses' in-court identifications was harmless under the particular circumstances of this case (see, People v Charles, 156 A.D.2d 575; People v Lloyd, 141 A.D.2d 669). There was ample evidence to support the trial court's finding of an independent source. The witnesses, who could not be found immediately prior to trial for the independent source hearing, did not identify the defendant as the perpetrator or even place him at the scene of the crime. Rather, they testified that the defendant, the victim, her companion, and her daughter were in a restaurant, several blocks from the scene of the crime, prior to the murder. It was conceded that the defendant, the victim, and her family all lived together and, therefore, the victim's daughter, who was the sole eyewitness, was well acquainted with the defendant. There is no indication that the defendant's trial strategy was adversely affected by the timing of the hearing, nor was the hearing held after the testimony of the witnesses (compare, People v Burts, 78 N.Y.2d 20). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.