Opinion
January 19, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant. The complainant testified that he had observed the defendant in his neighborhood on two separate occasions prior to the commission of the crime. Therefore, the hearing court correctly found that the complainant had an independent basis for his identification testimony and that the police display of a single photograph of the defendant was proper because it merely confirmed that the right person would be arrested (see, People v Kolomick, 132 A.D.2d 677; People v Hooper, 112 A.D.2d 317, 318).
The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People was sufficient as a matter of law to support the defendant's conviction (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the defendant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.