Opinion
December 8, 1986
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the photographic array viewed by the witness was unduly suggestive is without merit. It is well settled that "great weight must be accorded the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses (People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), and that determination that the identification should not be disturbed where it is supported by the record" (People v. Gee, 104 A.D.2d 561). In the instant case the hearing court's determination procedure was not unduly suggestive was clearly supported by the record.
Further, a court's identification charge is sufficient if, after hearing the instruction, the jury "would gather from its language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving at its decision" (People v. Gardner, 59 A.D.2d 913). A review of the charge in the case at bar reveals that instructions sufficient to assist the jury in an accurate evaluation of the identification evidence were given. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.