Opinion
June 24, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
"In cases where there has been no pretrial identification procedure and the defendant is identified in court for the first time, the defendant is not deprived of a fair trial because the defense counsel is able to explore weaknesses and suggestiveness of the identification in front of the jury ( see, People v Bradley, 154 A.D.2d 609, 610; People v. Jackson, 167 A.D.2d 420)" ( People v. Medina, 208 A.D.2d 771, 772). Accordingly, we reject the defendant's contention that the in-court identifications violated his right to due process. Further, the court's denial of the defendant's request for a Wade hearing was proper because the witness' pretrial identification of the defendant from a photograph in a local newspaper was not a police-arranged procedure ( see, People v. Bello, 219 A.D.2d 657; People v Fuller, 185 A.D.2d 446; People v. Pauley, 125 A.D.2d 341; People v Marshall, 91 A.D.2d 643, 644).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Pizzuto, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.