Given the number of times the complainant encountered defendant at the restaurant bar, as well as the length and highly charged nature of those encounters, the complainant's Grand Jury testimony clearly established that she was sufficiently familiar with defendant that, as a matter of law, there was no risk that police suggestion could lead to a misidentification (People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445, 450). Accordingly, the court properly denied defendant a Wade hearing without first conducting a hearing as to whether the photographic identification was merely confirmatory in nature (supra).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.