Opinion
July 10, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although defendant was the subject of suggestive pretrial identification procedures, the court properly permitted the complainant to identify the defendant at trial as there was an independent basis for the identification. The complainant had ample time to view the defendant (see, People v. Washington, 111 A.D.2d 418, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 768; People v. Mosley, 110 A.D.2d 937) and her initial description of the defendant was detailed. Moreover, as complainant testified at the Wade hearing, during the rape she touched the assailant's face and back and "in a braille-type of way I reinforced what I had seen by touch." Thus, under the totality of circumstances, the People established by clear and convincing evidence that the complainant's in-court identification of the defendant was reliable (see, People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 606-607; People v. Smith, 109 A.D.2d 1096, 1098; People v. Graham, 67 A.D.2d 172, 176-178). We have considered defendant's remaining claims and find each one lacking in merit.