Opinion
April 5, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the court's refusal to conduct an "independent source" hearing as to the identification testimony elicited from one of the People's eyewitnesses. Although the court initially ruled that the witness's identification testimony would be admissible because it was confirmatory (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445) and prior to trial the prosecutor revealed that the witness did not know the defendant, at trial the court did offer the defendant the opportunity to re-open the Wade hearing. The defendant expressly declined his offer, as counsel agreed that there was no need to inquire into the issue of whether the witness's identification testimony was tainted as a result of any unduly suggestive identification procedures. Inasmuch as the defendant expressly rejected the court's offer to re-open the Wade hearing to inquire into the issue of the alleged suggestiveness of the identification procedures employed, or whether the witness possessed an independent basis for his in-court identification, his present claims of error in this regard have been waived (see, People v D'Alvia, 171 A.D.2d 96). In any event, two other eyewitnesses implicated the defendant as the person who shot the victim and thus, any error in connection with the disputed issue would be harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.