Opinion
November 18, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the hearing court properly denied suppression of an in-court identification, since the witness's prior acquaintance with the defendant provided a sufficient independent basis for the in-court identification (see, People v. Pittman, 159 A.D.2d 594; People v. Kolomick, 132 A.D.2d 677; People v. Levy, 123 A.D.2d 885; People v. Griffin, 106 A.D.2d 402).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 (see, People v. Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196). 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 (CPL 470.15).
The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the trial court's exclusion of all witnesses, including his father, from the courtroom. At no time was the general public denied access to the courtroom (see, People v. Felder, 39 A.D.2d 373, affd 32 N.Y.2d 747; People v. Smith, 111 A.D.2d 883).
Further, the admission of the decedent's dying declaration was proper. The dying declaration was properly linked to the defendant. Any deficiencies in the value of the dying declaration went to the weight rather than the admissibility of the statement (see, Richardson, Evidence § 307 [Prince 10th ed]; People v Liccione, 63 A.D.2d 305, affd 50 N.Y.2d 850). Further, the trial court acted within its discretion in limiting the defense counsel's cross-examination of the People's witnesses regarding the victim's credibility (see, Richardson, Evidence §§ 317, 500 [Prince 10th ed]; Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 336 [14th ed]).
A prosecution witness's invocation of the Fifth Amendment did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial since this witness only invoked the Fifth Amendment with respect to collateral matters (see, People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22; People v. Fominas, 111 A.D.2d 868; People v. Jones, 99 A.D.2d 471).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.