Opinion
November 5, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The evidence before the court at a hearing on certain branches of defendant's motion to suppress evidence clearly established that the complainant spontaneously identified defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. As such, there was no need for a Wade hearing on that branch of defendant's motion which sought suppression of identification testimony, and therefore defendant's request for such a hearing was properly denied (see People v Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445). We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.