PEOPLE v. SUBER (2001)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered December 9, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 We reject the defendant's contention that the prosecutor intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure when she brought the complainant's wife into the courtroom shortly before the court went into session.   Under the circumstances, the prosecutor neither intentionally arranged an inherently-suggestive showup procedure (see, People v. Brown, 123 A.D.2d 875, 507 N.Y.S.2d 476) nor solicited or encouraged a response from the complainant's wife.  “Inadvertent observations of a defendant do not constitute an identification procedure within the intendment of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149;  see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924” (People v. Brown, supra, at 876, 507 N.Y.S.2d 476).   Accordingly, the defendant's motion for a mistrial was properly denied.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.