Opinion
December 20, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At his plea allocution, the defendant initially stated a desire to plead guilty to one count of robbery in the first degree in satisfaction of the indictment. However, when the court asked the defendant whether he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty, the defendant denied his guilt. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the defendant's offer to plead guilty (see, People v Serrano, 15 N.Y.2d 304; People v Leite, 52 A.D.2d 895).
Thereafter, the defendant proceeded to trial. There is no evidence in the record supporting the defendant's speculative claim that the complainant may have seen him standing alone in a holding cell at the police station prior to the subject lineup. Accordingly, he failed to sustain his burden of proving that the lineup procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Flowers, 150 A.D.2d 721, 722).
Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that a prior viewing occurred under the circumstances alleged by the defendant, it would have been accidental and not an unduly suggestive police arranged identification procedure (see, People v McCarter, 179 A.D.2d 780; People v Nimmons, 177 A.D.2d 444; People v Edwards, 160 A.D.2d 722). Under the circumstances here, the court did not err by denying the defendant's request to call the complainant as a witness at the suppression hearing (see, People v Taylor, 80 N.Y.2d 1, 15; People v Chipp, supra, at 337-339). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.