Majority
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered December 9, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure when she brought the complainant’s wife into the courtroom shortly before the court went into session. Under the circumstances, the prosecutor neither intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure (see, People v Brown, 123 AD2d 875 ) nor solicited or encouraged a response from the complainant’s wife. “Inadvertent observations of a defendant do not constitute an identification procedure within the intendment of United States v Wade ( 388 US 218 ; see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543 , 552)” (People v Brown, supra, at 876 ). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for a mistrial was properly denied.
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Brown 123 AD2d 875 p. 480
- United States v. Wade 388 US 218 p. 480
- People v. Gissendanner 48 NY2d 543 at 552 p. 480