Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defense counsel's waiver of the defendant's right to be present at the preliminary hearing did not taint the identification at trial and, thus, the identification testimony should not be suppressed on this ground (see, People v. Lyde, 104 A.D.2d 957; People v. Chambliss, 106 Misc.2d 342).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the failure to produce at the Wade hearing the photograph of the defendant identified by the complainant did not render the hearing flawed and mandate suppression of the in-court identification. The complainant viewed drawers containing hundreds of photographs. The "volume and scope of this procedure militates against the presence of suggestiveness" and the cross-examination of the complainant and the detective did not indicate that the procedure was suggestive (People v. Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874; see also, People v. Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411). Furthermore, the evidence amply established an independent basis for the in-court identification (see, People v. Lyde, supra; People v. Washington, 111 A.D.2d 418). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.