The inconsistent testimony as to whether the on-scene identification was police arranged did not raise additional pertinent facts warranting a reopening of the Wade hearing (CPL 710.40). Even if the identification had been prompted by a police communication to the victim that they had a suspect, such would not have rendered the identification unreliable given the rapid unbroken chain of events from the commission of the crime through the apprehension and identification ( see, People v Stafford, 215 AD2d 212, lv denied 86 NY2d 784). The court properly refused to declare the arresting officer a hostile witness in the absence of direct proof of his hostility or unwillingness and reluctance to testify ( see, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-415 [c]; § 6-416 [Farrell 11th ed]). In any event, a hostile witness declaration would not have permitted defendant to establish his direct case by use of impeachment material (CPL 60.35; see, People v Fitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44, 49-51). The prosecutor's summation was a proper response to defense counsel's attack on the victim's credibility ( see, People v Wilkerson, 189 AD2d 592, lv denied 81 NY2d 849). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.