Opinion
December 14, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D'Amaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
After examining the six photographs shown to the complainant, we find no basis for disturbing the hearing court's determination that the array did not present a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification (see, People v Coleman, 114 A.D.2d 906). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence supports the hearing court's findings that the complainant did in fact make a positive identification of the defendant upon his first viewing of the photographic array seven days after the crime, and that the complainant's identification of the defendant upon his second viewing of the array six days later was a confirmation of his first identification.
In addition, we find no support for the defendant's contention that the complainant's viewings of the photographic array tainted his subsequent viewing of two lineups both conducted 19 days after the second viewing of the photographic arrays. Moreover, there is no specific claim that the lineup procedures were unduly suggestive.
In light of the foregoing determinations, we need not reach the issue of whether the prospective in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant had a basis independent of the pretrial identification procedures.
Finally, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.