Opinion
February 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the eyewitness's identification of him. The record reveals that the witness's station-house viewing of the defendant was accidental, unarranged, not attributable to any misconduct on the part of the police, and not unduly suggestive (see, People v Magee, 192 A.D.2d 559, 560; People v. Griffin, 190 A.D.2d 687). In addition, because the viewing was mere happenstance, and not the result of a prearranged police identification procedure, it was not subject to the notice requirement of CPL 710.30 (see, People v. Overton, 192 A.D.2d 624).
The defendant's contention that the trial court's use of a hypothetical example during its supplemental charge to the jury deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Somers, 78 N.Y.2d 1058). In any event, although the use of hypothetical examples during the court's charge should be avoided, there is no evidence that the hypothetical example in this case was either coercive or diversionary (see, People v. Thomas, 179 A.D.2d 793, 794; People v. Rizzo, 175 A.D.2d 221, 223).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Lawrence, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.