Opinion
January 21, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
In this prosecution under Indictment No. 3345/88 for a knife-point robbery, the hearing court properly denied suppression of a station house showup identification of the defendant. The complainant identified the defendant as his assailant when he spotted the defendant in the vicinity minutes after the crime. Thereafter, the complainant spontaneously identified the defendant at the precinct station house. This second identification was not arranged by the police (see, People v. Diaz, 146 A.D.2d 797). In any event, it was merely confirmatory since the complainant had already identified the defendant as one of the robbers (People v. Harris, 171 A.D.2d 882; People v. Griffin, 161 A.D.2d 799, 801; People v. Knight, 156 A.D.2d 588).
Also with regard to Indictment No. 3345/88, we find that the defendant effectively waived his right to be present for part of the cross-examination of one of the People's witnesses when he refused to leave his cell and return to the courtroom after a recess (see, People v. Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343, 350, cert denied 423 U.S. 999; People v. Rios, 126 A.D.2d 860). The defendant was given a number of opportunities to return to the courtroom yet he refused to do so, claiming that he was tired.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.