Opinion
Submitted December 7, 1999
January 27, 2000
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered April 7, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Sally Wasserman, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel; Gaetano Calo on the brief), for respondent.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the in-court identification testimony was improper because it was based upon impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures. An in-court identification of a defendant by an eyewitness is proper, notwithstanding unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures, where it is based upon the eyewitness's independent observation of the defendant ( see, People v. Brown, 187 A.D.2d 662, 663). There was sufficient evidence at the independent source hearing to support a determination that the eyewitness had an adequate opportunity to observe the defendant, and thus the in-court identification was proper.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.