Opinion
February 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sharpe, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The complainant was shot by an individual whom he observed for "a good minute" under adequate lighting conditions. He informed the police that he had seen his assailant many times in the neighborhood. Subsequently, the complainant identified a photograph of the defendant from a photographic array.
The defendant contends that the photographic identification was impermissibly suggestive because the complainant had observed the defendant prior to the assault. It is clear, however, that the focusing on the defendant was not due to suggestive police action, but rather emanated from the complainant's own information (see, People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 194, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020, and rearg dismissed 27 N.Y.2d 733; People v Laguer, 58 A.D.2d 610). This information, along with the complainant's observations at the time of the crime, also provided an independent source for the complainant's in-court identification (see, People v. Laguer, supra).
We find that the sentence imposed by the court was within the exercise of its discretion (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.