Opinion
October 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The People charged that on March 28, 1991, the defendant and two others robbed the complainant at gunpoint in the vestibule of his apartment building. The complainant picked the defendant's picture out of a photographic array and subsequently identified him in a lineup. The prosecution failed to serve any CPL 710.30 notice on the defense with respect to the photographic array, but did serve timely notice regarding the lineup identification. The court held a Wade hearing during which both identification procedures were explored. Following the hearing, the court ruled that during the trial the complainant could testify to selecting the defendant from the lineup and could identify him in court, but that no reference could be made to the complainant's photographic array identification.
On appeal, the defendant argues, among other things, that because of the violation of CPL 710.30, the complainant's lineup identification should have been suppressed and his in-court identification should have been precluded. The defendant's contention is without merit. The timely notice of the complainant's lineup identification adequately alerted the defendant to the advisability of inquiring into the details of earlier identification procedures which might have tainted the prospective in-court identification, even though the procedure for which no notice was given was properly excluded (see, e.g., People v. Tatum, 205 A.D.2d 397; People v. Smith, 149 Misc.2d 998, affd 190 A.D.2d 701). Indeed, both identification procedures were thoroughly explored by defense counsel during the Wade hearing.
In addition, upon our review of the lineup photograph and the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing, we find that the hearing court properly denied suppression of the lineup identification of the defendant by the complainant (see, e.g., People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v. Valdez, 204 A.D.2d 369; People v. Chalmers, 163 A.D.2d 528; People v. Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611, 612).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Altman, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.