On appeal it is urged that there was insufficient testimony to support the court's decision since the complainant's testimony was unreliable. Not only is it argued that there was insufficient time to observe the assailant at the time of the crime, but it is also urged that the in-court identification was tainted by the illegal show-up. The court suppressed the show-up, but ruled that there was a sufficient basis to conclude that there was an independent source for the complainant's identification testimony. Although the time to observe the assailant was only a few seconds, it was made under good lighting conditions, both before and after the incident, and the complainant had good reason to observe his assailant after he was struck.

The hearing court duly considered all the evidence before it, including the complainant's opportunity to observe his assailant, his description of the assailant and his in-court identification of appellant and was in the best position to assess the credibility of the complainant. We find no basis for disturbing these findings.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.