Opinion
Argued March 9, 2001.
April 2, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered December 9, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the prosecutor intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure when she brought the complainant's wife into the courtroom shortly before the court went into session. Under the circumstances, the prosecutor neither intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure (see, People v. Brown, 123 A.D.2d 875) nor solicited or encouraged a response from the complainant's wife. "Inadvertent observations of a defendant do not constitute an identification procedure within the intendment of United States v. Wade ( 388 U.S. 218; see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552)" (People v. Brown, supra, at 876). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for a mistrial was properly denied.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.