Opinion
October 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Notwithstanding the ruling following a suppression hearing allowing testimony at trial by an eyewitness concerning his station house identification of the defendant, no such testimony was given. Therefore, any error in the ruling permitting this testimony is academic in light of the eyewitness's failure to testify with respect thereto. In any event, we find that the witness's familiarity with the defendant prior to the occurrence of the offense charged was such that the station house identification procedure employed failed to create a substantial risk of misidentification (see, People v. Dolphin, 77 A.D.2d 571). The record of the Wade hearing discloses that the witness saw the defendant rob his pregnant victim as she wheeled her child in a stroller, under threat of physical harm to both the victim and her child, and then the witness chased the defendant toward the vicinity of the defendant's family's home. The witness told the responding police officer that he knew the defendant from the neighborhood and even provided the officer with the defendant's name and address. One week thereafter the witness confirmed his identification of the defendant at a station house showup. Upon this record it is clear that the witness knew the defendant's identity prior to the commission of the crime. Accordingly, the showup at the station house was in the nature of a confirmatory procedure rendering the issue of suggestiveness irrelevant (see, People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915, 916; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552; People v. Marrero, 167 A.D.2d 559; People v. Lizardi, 166 A.D.2d 672, 673).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.