complainant at the Wade hearing in New York

1994In 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 NY2d 985 ; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Green, 170 AD2d 692 ; People v Stephens, 161 AD2d 740 ).

1992"A defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant at the Wade hearing absent some indicia of the suggestiveness of the identification procedure employed” (People v Peterkin, 75 NY2d 985, 986 ).

1994In 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 NY2d 985 ; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Green, 170 AD2d 692 ; People v Stephens, 161 AD2d 740 ).

1990A defendant does not have an absolute right to call a complainant at the Wade hearing absent some indicia of the suggestiveness of the identification procedure employed (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336-338 ).

1999A defendant does not have an absolute right to examine a complainant at a Wade hearing (see, People v Peterkin, 75 NY2d 985 ; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336-338 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Padilla, 219 AD2d 688 ).

1994In 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 NY2d 985 ; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Green, 170 AD2d 692 ; People v Stephens, 161 AD2d 740 ).

1999A defendant does not have an absolute right to examine a complainant at a Wade hearing (see, People v Peterkin, 75 NY2d 985 ; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336-338 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Padilla, 219 AD2d 688 ).

1995The hearing court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application to call the complainant at the Wade hearing, without prejudice to a motion to reopen, on the ground that defendant’s claims of suggestiveness were purely speculative (People v Taylor, 80 NY2d 1, 15 ).

1994In 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 NY2d 985 ; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Green, 170 AD2d 692 ; People v Stephens, 161 AD2d 740 ).

1994In 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 NY2d 985 ; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Green, 170 AD2d 692 ; People v Stephens, 161 AD2d 740 ).

1994Since 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).

1992Defendant’s argument that the court improperly admitted evidence of the complainant’s physical and mental condition after he was robbed and sodomized is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, without merit, since the evidence was offered not to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice defendant but to prove that the complainant had been sexually assaulted (see, People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369-370 ).

1991There is no evidence of an abuse of discretion by the hearing court in denying defendant’s request to call the complainant at the Wade hearing, as defendant’s offer of proof regarding the need to call that witness was purely speculative in nature (see, e.g., People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738 ).

1990Accordingly, since the defendant failed to establish that the identification procedure employed was unduly suggestive, the People were not obligated to produce the complainant at the Wade hearing (see, People v James, supra; People v Tweedy, 134 AD2d 467 ; People v Jackson, 108 AD2d 757 ).

1990Contrary to defendant’s contention, the hearing court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to call the complainant at the Wade hearing (United States v Wade, 388 US 218 ).

1990Accordingly, since the defendant failed to establish that the identification procedure employed was unduly suggestive, the People were not obligated to produce the complainant at the Wade hearing (see, People v James, supra; People v Tweedy, 134 AD2d 467 ; People v Jackson, 108 AD2d 757 ).

1990Accordingly, since the defendant failed to establish that the identification procedure employed was unduly suggestive, the People were not obligated to produce the complainant at the Wade hearing (see, People v James, supra; People v Tweedy, 134 AD2d 467 ; People v Jackson, 108 AD2d 757 ).

1990Defendant argues, however, that he has a right to call the complainant where there has been a showup, an inherently suggestive identification procedure (see, People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523 ).