Opinion
July 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court improperly denied the branch of his motion which was to suppress the identification made by the complainant at the police station. We disagree. The hearing court correctly found that the credible evidence submitted at the Wade hearing established that the complainant knew the defendant and that, therefore, the procedure was not suggestive ( see, e.g., People v. Douglas, 170 A.D.2d 691; People v. Fleming, 109 A.D.2d 848).
We discern no basis for disturbing the sentence imposed by the court ( see, People v. Truesdell, 70 N.Y.2d 809; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.