Opinion
November 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Corriero, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence of his pretrial lineup identification. More than two months elapsed between the display of the photographic array to the complainant and his identification of the defendant from the lineup, which was sufficient to attenuate any possible taint of suggestiveness (see, People v. Allah, 158 A.D.2d 605; People v. Carter, 106 A.D.2d 654, 656-657). Further, there was no evidence adduced at the hearing that at the lineup procedure the complainant was merely identifying the individual in the photographic array rather than the man who had robbed and assaulted him (see, People v. Allah, supra).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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). Lawrence, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.