Opinion
May 15, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, a review of the record reveals that neither the photo array shown to Janet Khamo nor the lineup employed was unduly suggestive (see, People v Carlton, 146 A.D.2d 641; People v Smith, 140 A.D.2d 647, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 961; People v Lewis, 134 A.D.2d 286). Moreover, we agree with the hearing court that both witnesses had ample opportunity in which to form an independent basis for in-court identifications of the defendant (see, People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847; People v Lewis, supra; People v Collymore, 127 A.D.2d 603, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 948; People v Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Lastly, we find the defendant has failed to demonstrate a deprivation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. The defense counsel's representation was within the broad range of reasonably competent assistance and there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial was affected by the alleged shortcomings of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Diaz, 131 A.D.2d 775).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.