Opinion
December 21, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress testimony regarding the lineup identifications by the complainant as under the totality of the circumstances it cannot be said that the identification procedures employed were so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification that the defendant was denied due process (see, People v Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738; People v Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020, rearg dismissed 27 N.Y.2d 733, 737).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the defendant to cross-examine the complainant as to the underlying facts of several prior arrests but refusing to permit inquiry into the fact that she had been arrested where the arrest involved did not result in a conviction (see, People v Cook, 37 N.Y.2d 591; People v Batista, 113 A.D.2d 890, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 648). Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.