Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The station house viewing of the defendant by an undercover officer, which was conducted shortly after his arrest and only three-and-one-half hours after the drug transaction, was merely for the purpose of confirming that the right person had been arrested. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly denied the defendant's request for a Wade hearing (see, People v Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921; People v Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262; People v Davis, 141 A.D.2d 831; People v Marrero, 110 A.D.2d 785).
We also conclude that the defendant forfeited his right to be present at trial by voluntarily failing to appear in court on the fifth day of trial (see, Taylor v United States, 414 U.S. 17, 20; People v Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436). Moreover, after making reasonable efforts to locate the defendant, the trial court properly determined that the trial should proceed in his absence (see, People v Collins, 137 A.D.2d 542, 545).
Finally, it is well settled that the trial court is afforded wide latitude and broad discretion in limiting the nature and extent of cross-examination in the proceeding before it (see, People v Almeida, 159 A.D.2d 508, 509; People v Ricigliano, 138 A.D.2d 751, 753). Since the station house showup was merely confirmatory, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of the People's witnesses on the issue of its suggestiveness. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.