Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly declined to suppress the complainant's identification testimony. Since the evidence established that the defendant and the complainant were known to each other, the station house identification was more in the nature of a confirmation than an identification and thus no issue as to the suggestiveness of the procedure utilized was presented (see, People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v Lang, 122 A.D.2d 226, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1001). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.