Majority
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his suppression motion following a Wade hearing. The single photograph identification procedure was not unduly suggestive; the police officer’s identification of defendant from that photograph two hours after observing defendant during a face-to-face drug transaction was merely confirmatory, and thus there was no need for a Wade hearing (see, People v Montgomery, 213 AD2d 563 , 564, affd 88 NY2d 926 ; People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921 , 922-923; People v Chavys, 263 AD2d 964 , 965, lv denied 94 NY2d 821 ; People v Miles, 219 AD2d 685 , 686-687, lv denied 87 NY2d 905 , 88 NY2d 968 ). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Sir-kin, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Montgomery 213 AD2d 563 at 564 p. 1037
- People v. Montgomery 88 NY2d 926 p. 1037
- People v. Wharton 74 NY2d 921 at 922-923 p. 1037