Opinion
December 30, 1992
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Reed, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly found that the photo array was not impermissibly suggestive (cf., People v Hall, 81 A.D.2d 644; People v Tindal, 69 A.D.2d 58). In any event, there was an independent basis for the victim's in-court identification (see, People v Perez, 74 N.Y.2d 637). Defendant's remaining arguments on appeal are unpreserved and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice.