Opinion
May 18, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court acted properly in denying the defendant's application to suppress identification evidence. The hearing record reveals that a retired police detective was called as a defense witness, but was unable to remember the circumstances surrounding the transporting of the complainant to the police precinct for the purpose of viewing a lineup. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the inability of the witness to recall the facts of the case did not deny the defendant's right to explore the issue of suggestiveness with regard to the lineup. Rather, the defendant received that to which he was entitled — a full and fair opportunity to question the witness in an attempt to discredit the prosecution's evidence. The defendant did not have any right to a witness with a clear and unfailing recollection of all relevant events (see generally, United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554; Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15).
The People came forward with ample evidence demonstrating the fairness of the lineup procedure, and the defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that the lineup was unduly suggestive (see generally, People v. Webster, 169 A.D.2d 796; People v. Holmes, 159 A.D.2d 639; People v. Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757). Moreover, the record does not support a finding that the police engaged in improper conduct with regard to the lineup procedure, nor can such a conclusion be inferred from the mere inability of the witness to recall the circumstances of the case (see, People v. Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692). Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.