Opinion
October 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was represented by counsel in an unrelated matter at the time that he was taken into custody and placed in a lineup. When a suspect is not represented by counsel in a particular matter, "the State has no obligation to supply counsel at investigatory lineups" (People v. Coates, 74 N.Y.2d 244, 248). Even an explicit request for counsel at such a lineup "is insufficient to trigger an official obligation to notify defense counsel of the opportunity to be present at a lineup when no counsel has been otherwise engaged or appointed" (People v LaClere, 76 N.Y.2d 670, 673; see, People v. Hawkins, 55 N.Y.2d 474, 487, cert denied 459 U.S. 846). The defendant did not retain his counsel from the unrelated matter to represent him in the instant matter. In any event, he did not explicitly request the presence of counsel at the lineup identification. Accordingly, the trial court correctly refused to suppress the lineup identification testimony (see, People v. Coates, supra; People v. Brooks, 184 A.D.2d 518).
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it precluded the defendant from presenting an alibi witness who was not timely and properly noticed under CPL 250.20, and the defendant did not proffer a sufficient reason for the delay (see, People v. Caputo, 175 A.D.2d 290; People v. Smith, 208 A.D.2d 965; People v. Toro, 198 A.D.2d 532; People v. Peralta, 127 A.D.2d 803). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.