—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered May 16, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Dubin, J.), of defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
After defendant’s apprehension, he was brought to the security office in the Alexander’s store. The cashier was also brought to the security office. At the Wade hearing, the cashier testified that she told an unidentified person in the office "That’s him” as defendant was being taken away by police. At trial, she testified that, while at the security office, she "peeked” into a separate room where defendant was being held but did not see his face, and did not identify him at that time.
Defendant argues that the court erred in permitting the salesman to identify defendant at trial as the man he had apprehended because the People did not serve a notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 in regard to such identification testimony. We disagree. Contrary to defendant’s assertions on appeal, the record is devoid of any evidence that the salesman participated in any identification procedure whatsoever, arranged either by the police or by store security personnel. His observation of defendant immediately after the occurrence of the crime was not made in the context of a confrontation arranged for the purpose of establishing the identity of the criminal actor (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 552; People v Medina, 111 AD2d 190). Accordingly, no identification hearing was required with respect to his testimony.
Defendant argues alternatively that a new Wade hearing is required as to the showup identification procedure which was conducted at the security office after defendant’s apprehension. Defendant was apparently identified by the cashier after she had viewed him in person as he was being taken away by police. Defense counsel alleges that he learned for the first time at the Wade hearing that a photograph had been taken of defendant while he was being held by Alexander’s security personnel. Defense counsel requested an adjournment in order to have the photograph produced at the hearing, and this
Defendant’s remaining contention has been reviewed and is without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.