Opinion
June 10, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Discrepancies in the identification testimony presented factual questions for the jury, and we see no reason to disturb its determinations ( People v. Jenkins, 174 A.D.2d 379, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 968).
Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. None of the procedures was "so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to an erroneous identification as to violate defendant's right to the due process of law" ( People v Howard, 130 A.D.2d 384, 385; see also, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833).
The challenged portions of the People's summation do not warrant reversal. We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.