Opinion
November 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that the trial testimony was legally sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty of assault in the second degree. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). The conflicting testimony of two witnesses merely created a credibility issue which was resolved by the jury (see, People v. Shapiro, 117 A.D.2d 688, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 950).
The defendant's further contention that the photographic identification procedure used by the police was impermissibly suggestive is without merit. Since the complainant knew the defendant prior to the crime, the procedure was not an identification, but was more in the nature of a confirmation (see, People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v. Lang, 122 A.D.2d 226, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1001). In any event, the identification procedure was not suggestive and an independent source for the identification existed based upon the fact that during the commission of the crime, the complainant observed the defendant at close range in a well-lit area (see, People v. Arnette, 111 A.D.2d 861; People v. Washington, 111 A.D.2d 418, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 768).
We find equally unpersuasive the defendant's argument that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion by allowing evidence of 2 of the defendant's 4 prior convictions to be used for impeachment purposes (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.