Opinion
April 18, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying a request that the complainant be produced at the Wade hearing. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant did not make such a request and cannot rely on the request of a codefendant (see, People v Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d 843; People v Burch, 188 A.D.2d 479). In any event, a defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant at the Wade hearing absent some indicia that the identification procedure employed was suggestive (see, People v Peterkin, 75 N.Y.2d 985; People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Green, 170 A.D.2d 692; People v Stephens, 161 A.D.2d 740). Since the evidence presented at the hearing raised no issues regarding the constitutionality or suggestiveness of the identification procedures, the hearing court properly denied the request to call the complaining witness (see, People v Green, supra).
The defendant failed to preserve his claim regarding translation problems with the court appointed interpreter. In any event, his contention that he was unable to understand or participate in the proceedings or that he was deprived of a fair trial because he could not understand the interpreter finds no support in the record (see, People v Gordillo, 191 A.D.2d 455; People v Ko, 133 A.D.2d 850).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.