Opinion
October 17, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Seybert, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel because of his trial attorney's "failure to explore the suggestiveness" of a police officer's prior out-of-court photographic identification of the defendant. We agree with the People that the photographic identification procedure referred to by the defendant was purely confirmatory, and that the notice and hearing requirements relating to potentially suggestive pretrial identification procedures did not apply (see, People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286; see also, People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445; People v. Williamson, 79 N.Y.2d 1055; People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Smith, 193 A.D.2d 1054). Counsel's failure to "explore" the circumstances surrounding this confirmatory identification procedure, and his failure to make what would have been a futile motion to preclude, are not inconsistent with the conclusion that he provided the defendant with "meaningful representation" (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.