Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's request for the transcript of the Wade hearing was not made prior to the conclusion of the hearing (People v. Sanders, 31 N.Y.2d 463, 467) and, therefore, was untimely (see, Matter of Eric W., 68 N.Y.2d 633). Moreover, defendant suffered no prejudice from the court's denial of his request for an adjournment of the victim's trial testimony until the Wade hearing could be transcribed. Only about 1 1/2 hours separated the conclusion of the hearing and the commencement of the victim's testimony, and defense attorney was able to impeach the complainant's trial testimony with her testimony at the Wade hearing.
The court did not err by allowing the complainant to identify defendant at trial. The complainant was not subjected to a police-arranged confrontation for identification purposes. Her chance encounter with defendant in the corridor of the courthouse was not a pretrial identification procedure; thus, CPL 710.30 is not implicated (see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552; People v. Crespo, 111 A.D.2d 251).
The court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a severance (People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v. New York, 416 U.S. 905). We have examined defendant's remaining arguments and find them either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit.