PEOPLE v. SUBER

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) 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; see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552)" (People v. Brown, supra, at 876). Accordingly, the defendant's motion for a mistrial was properly denied.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.