Opinion
December 12, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the hearing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request to call the identifying witness at the Wade hearing (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). As the hearing court found, the hearing testimony of the police amply demonstrated that there was nothing unduly suggestive about the pretrial identification procedures utilized in this case. The defendant's contention that by calling the identifying witness to the stand he may have been able to elicit information establishing otherwise, was nothing more than speculation (see, People v James, 159 A.D.2d 723).
Moreover, a "careful and realistic" reading of the record supports the conclusion that the defendant's decision to proceed pro se was a knowing and intelligent one (see, People v Miley, 154 A.D.2d 559) and, as such, the defendant's waiver of counsel was effective.
We have examined defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.