Opinion
April 16, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court was correct in summarily denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress prospective identification testimony, since the papers in support of the motion established that the witnesses knew the defendant prior to the commission of the crime (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Charles, 111 A.D.2d 405; People v. Ingram, 110 A.D.2d 852). Although the defendant was given an opportunity to renew his request for a Wade hearing, he elected instead to enter into a guilty plea. Since the defendant failed to present any facts or proof to rebut the People's allegations regarding the confirmatory nature of the photographic identifications, his challenge to the propriety of the denial of his motion to suppress is rejected and the judgment affirmed. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Bracken and Eiber, JJ., concur.