Opinion
April 17, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, that the defendant was competent to stand trial (see, CPL 730.10; People v. Allen, 135 A.D.2d 823; People v Breeden, 115 A.D.2d 484).
Turning to the defendant's other contention, under the circumstances, the complainant's viewing of the defendant's photograph was confirmatory and not an identification, since the defendant had previously been identified by her at the time of his arrest (see, People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Boyd, 140 A.D.2d 704).
We have considered the defendant's remaining claims, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.