Opinion
February 3, 1986
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.).
Order of disposition affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We reject the appellant's contention that the trial court was required to declare a mistrial or immediately conduct a Wade hearing once his counsel elicited testimony concerning a police showup held shortly after the commission of the crime. While a Wade hearing is preferable where evidence of a possibly suggestive pretrial identification procedure is discovered during trial, the absence of such a hearing does not constitute reversible error where, as here, an independent source for identification is demonstrated (see, People v. Williams, 87 A.D.2d 876; People v. Tillman, 74 A.D.2d 911). In light of the complainant's uncontroverted testimony that he observed the appellant's face at a close distance under well-lighted conditions for upwards of two minutes at the time of the crime, the trial court properly found that an independent source for the identification had been established. In addition, this finding, when coupled with other evidence directly linking appellant to the crime, was sufficient to render harmless any error in the receipt of testimony concerning the pretrial showup (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Burton, 106 A.D.2d 652; People v Wells, 89 A.D.2d 784). Nor do we find the trial court's denial of appellant's severance motion to be an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61; People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, cert denied sub nom. Victory v. New York, 416 U.S. 905).
Furthermore, the partial restriction placed upon the appellant's cross-examination of his accomplice with respect to impeachment of the latter's general credibility must be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the entire record (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v. Allen, 67 A.D.2d 558, affd 50 N.Y.2d 898). We have considered the remaining contentions of the appellant and find they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.