Opinion
April 1, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Charde, J.).
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the in-court identification of the defendant by a witness who testified that he observed the defendant carrying a television set as the defendant left the complainant's apartment. The witness also testified that he knew the defendant since 1962, when they lived on the same street, and further testified that he knew the defendant well enough to talk to him. Thus, the issue of suggestiveness was not relevant since the so-called photographic identification of the defendant by the witness was merely confirmatory (see, People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Fleming, 109 A.D.2d 848).
Contrary to the defendant's further contention, a special charge on circumstantial evidence was not required since the prosecutor presented direct evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Ruiz, 52 N.Y.2d 929; People v. Gerard, 50 N.Y.2d 392; People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375; People v. Burgos, 170 A.D.2d 689).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.