We find no error in the trial court's summary denial of a Wade hearing. This case involves a police show-up at the crime scene where the risk of undue police suggestion, prompting concern for due process, does not apply. Where, as here, a robbery victim recognizes his attacker during a later face-to-face encounter which is not contrived by law enforcement officials and then directs the police to him, that spontaneous recognition is neither police-arranged nor subject to any suggestive police conduct. Thus, due process does not require that such an out-of-court identification be suppressed (see, People v Whisby, 48 N.Y.2d 834; People v Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020; People v Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445; cf., People v Bond, 156 A.D.2d 573). Moreover, an identification to clarify for the apprehending police that they have stopped the right suspect, which immediately follows such a spontaneous recognition, is simply sound police procedure, and is likewise not subject to suppression (People v Soto, 198 A.D.2d 38; People v Fulmore, 133 A.D.2d 169, 170; see also, People v Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262, 271-272; People v Kirkland, 192 A.D.2d 414, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1075).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Williams, JJ.