witness at the Wade hearing in New York

1998We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in denying his application to call the confidential informant as a witness at the Wade hearing, since the hearing evidence did not raise any substantial issues regarding the suggestiveness of the identification procedures (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Harvall, 196 AD2d 553 ; People v Christenson, 188 AD2d 659 ).

1992In People v Chipp ( 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ), this Court stressed that the claimed right of the defendant to call the complainant as a witness at the Wade hearing must be evaluated in light of defendant’s ability "to examine the witness and explore issues relevant to identification at trial” (id., at 338).

2015Where, as here, a defendant does not assert that the pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive, the decision to grant a defendant’s request to call the complaining or identifying witness is a matter committed to the court’s sound discretion (see People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 15 [1992]; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 339 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v White, 79 AD3d 1460 , 1461 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011]).

2015Where, as here, a defendant does not assert that the pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive, the decision to grant a defendant’s request to call the complaining or identifying witness is a matter committed to the court’s sound discretion (see People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 15 [1992]; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 339 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v White, 79 AD3d 1460 , 1461 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 803 [2011]).

2001The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in incorporating into the Wade hearing the testimony adduced at the Dixon hearing (see, People v Dixon, 85 NY2d 218 ), since the appellant was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the Wade hearing.

1998We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in denying his application to call the confidential informant as a witness at the Wade hearing, since the hearing evidence did not raise any substantial issues regarding the suggestiveness of the identification procedures (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Harvall, 196 AD2d 553 ; People v Christenson, 188 AD2d 659 ).

1998We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in denying his application to call the confidential informant as a witness at the Wade hearing, since the hearing evidence did not raise any substantial issues regarding the suggestiveness of the identification procedures (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Harvall, 196 AD2d 553 ; People v Christenson, 188 AD2d 659 ).

1998Although the court failed to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, either orally or in writing, as required, this Court has an adequate record upon which to make its own such findings and conclusions (People v Jones, 204 AD2d 162 , lv denied 83 NY2d 968 ).

1994The court did not err in refusing to permit defendant to call complainant as a witness at the Wade hearing (see, United States v Wade, 388 US 218 ).

1992Defendant concedes that the suppression court correctly denied his request to call the complainant as a witness at the Wade hearing (People v Peterkin, 151 AD2d 407 , affd 75 NY2d 985 ).

1992We further noted that "[a]ny improprieties in pretrial identification procedures can be investigated under the ’time-honored process of cross-examination’ ” at trial (id., at 338, quoting Watkins v Sowders, 449 US 341, 349 ).

1992Defendant concedes that the suppression court correctly denied his request to call the complainant as a witness at the Wade hearing (People v Peterkin, 151 AD2d 407 , affd 75 NY2d 985 ).

1990There is no general requirement that the complainant testify at a Wade hearing; "it is only when the defense has established that a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive, after the prosecution had met its initial burden of going forward to demonstrate reasonableness and the lack of suggestiveness, that evidence concerning an independent source for the in-court identification must be elicited from the complainant” (People v Tweedy, 134 AD2d 467, 468 ; see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 ; People v Brown, 111 AD2d 928 ).

1990There is no general requirement that the complainant testify at a Wade hearing; "it is only when the defense has established that a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive, after the prosecution had met its initial burden of going forward to demonstrate reasonableness and the lack of suggestiveness, that evidence concerning an independent source for the in-court identification must be elicited from the complainant” (People v Tweedy, 134 AD2d 467, 468 ; see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 ; People v Brown, 111 AD2d 928 ).

1987Further, under the circumstances there was no need to call this witness (cf., People v Jackson, supra).

1987Any error with respect to the People’s failure to call the civilian as a witness at the Wade hearing was not preserved for our review since defense counsel did not object to his absence (see, People v Mojica, 122 AD2d 81 , lv denied 68 NY2d 1002 ).