Opinion
July 29, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant asserts that the trial court erroneously permitted the two complainants and another witness to give identification testimony. However, upon our review of the record of the suppression hearing and the lineup photograph, we conclude that the hearing court properly found that the lineup which the complainants had each separately viewed was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v. Valdez, 204 A.D.2d 369, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1016) and further correctly determined that the other witness had an independent source for his identification of the defendant (see, People v. Hyatt, 162 A.D.2d 713, 714).
The defendant's contention that the evidence adduced by the People was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of these crimes is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, 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 defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.