Opinion
May 22, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.),
The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Contrary to defendant's current contention, there was ample evidence that defendant knowingly entered and remained unlawfully in a department store where on three prior occasions he had been advised, and had acknowledged, that his license or privilege to enter had been revoked (Penal Law § 140.00). The allegedly countervailing evidence cited by defendant merely created a factual issue for the jury to resolve.
The court properly refused to sign defendant's subpoena duces tecum. Rather than seeking to obtain documents that were themselves evidence, the subpoena was intended "for the purpose of discovery or to ascertain the existence of evidence" ( Matter of Terry D., 81 N.Y.2d 1042, 1044).
The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to hold a " Wade-type hearing" concerning identification procedures conducted by store security personnel ( see, People v Vaughn, 169 A.D.2d 670, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 1001; People v Blackman, 110 A.D.2d 596).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.