Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The complaining witness was able to observe the defendant on three separate occasions during the robbery: once during the initial encounter when they were 12 to 18 inches apart and the defendant asked the complainant for his money; again, during the chase, when the complainant looked back to see if the defendant was still in pursuit; and a third time when they stopped approximately 10 to 15 feet from one another and exchanged words. The accumulated opportunities to observe provided a sufficient independent source for an in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant (see, People v Richards, 119 A.D.2d 597; Matter of Michael J., 117 A.D.2d 602; People v Codrington, 109 A.D.2d 891; People v Gordon, 87 A.D.2d 636), and the court therefore properly refused to suppress any in-court identification testimony which the People proposed to offer at trial (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 245). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.