Opinion
Submitted October 15, 1999
December 2, 1999
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered August 19, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, 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.
Susan B. Marhoffer, Mount Kisco, N.Y., for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Linda Breen of counsel), for respondent.
CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that certain 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 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 the in-court identification was proper.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.