Opinion
January 29, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of his motion which was to suppress identification testimony on the ground that the pretrial identification procedures employed were tainted is without merit. The hearing court's determination that neither of the pretrial identification procedures was unduly suggestive is supported by the credible evidence adduced at the hearing. Thus, we decline to disturb that determination (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Mattocks, 133 A.D.2d 89).
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 beyond a reasonable doubt. 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).
The sentencing court had the discretion to fix the minimum term of imprisonment at between one third and one half of the maximum term of imprisonment imposed, because the offense for which the defendant was being sentenced is a class B armed felony offense (see, Penal Law § 70.02; § 160.15 [4]; CPL 1.20 [b]). Moreover, in imposing a minimum term of imprisonment of one half of the maximum term of imprisonment, the court did not exercise its discretion improvidently.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.