The witness's viewing of defendant and his codefendant's arrest photographs in the prosecutor's office prior to the witness's testimony, for the purpose of reviewing their respective roles in the crime, constituted proper preparation for trial and not an identification procedure (People v. Herner, 85 N.Y.2d 877; People v. Morales, 248 A.D.2d 173, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 857; People v. Randolph, 232 A.D.2d 327). Therefore, the reopening of the Wade hearing and finding of an independent source was superfluous. In any event, the People established such independent source for the witness's in-court identification of defendant by clear and convincing evidence.
Defendant's contention with respect to the court's preliminary instructions has not been preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review in the interest of justice.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.