Opinion
April 13, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
We agree with the defendant that his application to waive his presence at the Wade hearing should have been granted (see, People v Epps, 37 N.Y.2d 343, cert denied 423 U.S. 999; People v Lyde, 104 A.D.2d 957; People v James, 100 A.D.2d 552). However, it was clearly established at the hearing that there were independent sources for the identifications of the defendant made by the eyewitnesses, all of whom had an opportunity to view him at close range under good lighting conditions for at least several minutes. In addition, these witnesses identified the defendant in a lineup as the assailant. Under the circumstances, the failure of the hearing court to grant the defendant's application was harmless (see, People v Lyde, supra). The defendant's remaining arguments with respect to the lineup and photographic identification procedures conducted by the police lack merit (see, People v Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82, appeal denied 68 N.Y.2d 916; People v Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874, appeal denied 66 N.Y.2d 764; People v Hernandez, 122 A.D.2d 856, appeal denied 69 N.Y.2d 712).
The identification charge given by the trial court was in all respects proper (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273). The defendant's other contentions with respect to the trial are either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit.
We find no reason to disturb the sentences imposed upon the defendant in view of his violent criminal history, the seriousness of the crimes he has committed and his unfavorable probation report. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.