Opinion
April 14, 1993
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Defendant contends that the lineup identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive because three of the witnesses to one of the robberies waited together for the lineup. The record fails to support that contention. All three witnesses unequivocally testified that they did not discuss the description of the robber prior to the lineup (see, People v Flowers, 150 A.D.2d 721, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 809; People v Morales, 134 A.D.2d 292, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 935). Absent a showing of impermissible suggestiveness of the pretrial identification procedure, the People had no burden of demonstrating an independent source for the witnesses' in-court identifications (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). The fact that three of the five eyewitnesses changed their initial identifications of the robber goes to the weight of their testimony, not its admissibility (see, People v Smedman, 184 A.D.2d 600, 605; People v Broadwater, 105 A.D.2d 1065).