People v. Peterkin

• Decision Date: 01 May 1990
• Citation: 75 N.Y.2d 985,557 N.Y.S.2d 261,556 N.E.2d 1068
• Parties: , 556 N.E.2d 1068 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony PETERKIN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 261

557 N.Y.S.2d 261

75 N.Y.2d 985, 556 N.E.2d 1068

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony PETERKIN, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 1, 1990.

[75 N.Y.2d 986] Dominic J. Sichenzia, Garden City, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Paula Milazzo and Mark Dwyer, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 151 A.D.2d 407, 543 N.Y.S.2d 438, should be affirmed.

Contrary 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 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149). 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. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336-338, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608). Defendant 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 N.Y.2d 523, 522 N.Y.S.2d 842, 517 N.E.2d 520). This argument has no application where, as here, the defendant does not dispute that the showup was made promptly and at the scene of the crime (see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 457 N.Y.S.2d 474, 443 N.E.2d 948). Nor has he claimed that the complainant's testimony would have differed in any respect from that offered by the People's witnesses. In these circumstances, defendant is not entitled to call the complainant at the hearing (...