Opinion
September 1, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Susan Larabee, J.).
Family Court properly denied appellant's motion for a Wade hearing on the ground that suggestiveness was not a concern because the victim and appellant were known to one another (see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552). At the hearing, the victim testified that he knew appellant by his nickname, had heard appellant's friends call him by such name, had seen him on numerous occasions in the neighborhood, and knew the block where appellant lived and that he did not attend the same school as the victim because appellant was somewhat older. Contrary to appellant's contentions, while appellant was not visually identified by the victim's cousin when appellant's name was first mentioned to the victim, and appellant was not subsequently noticed because of any distinguishing physical characteristics (cf., Matter of Raul F., 186 A.D.2d 74), the absence of these factors was of no moment in light of the other evidence of complainant's familiarity with appellant.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.