Opinion
February 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record of the Rodriguez hearing ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445), supports the hearing court's determination that the taxi driver who unwittingly transported the defendant and his accomplices to the crime scene was sufficiently familiar with the defendant that his photographic identification was merely confirmatory ( see, People v. Rodriguez, supra; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543).
The driver testified that the defendant had been in his taxi on 10 occasions in the eight months prior to the crime, including one occasion two or three days before the crime; that the defendant traveled with the same group of men; that they usually requested that he be their driver; that they always asked to be driven to the same location; and that the defendant always paid the fare. Under these circumstances, there was no risk that any police suggestion may have caused a misidentification, and a Wade hearing was therefore unnecessary.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or involve harmless errors.
Joy, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.