Opinion
January 30, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.).
The complainant identified appellant's photograph after viewing approximately 100 photographs from the precinct's file. The failure to produce the specific photograph identified did not render the Wade hearing flawed so as to mandate suppression. (People v. Ludwigsen, 128 A.D.2d 810 [2d Dept 1987].) The volume of photographs viewed and the scope of the procedure involved militate against the presence of suggestiveness ( 128 A.D.2d 810, supra). The lineup identification was not the result of an unlawful arrest. No evidence was presented to contradict the arresting officer's testimony that he knew appellant from the area; that he arrested him after viewing the complaint report in which appellant was named as the perpetrator and to which appellant's photograph was attached. (See, People v. Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361, 367.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.