Opinion
April 8, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Facelle, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
"The standard for determining whether an identification procedure is improperly suggestive is whether it was conducted in such a way that there is a substantial risk of irreparable misidentification" (People v. McClarin, 157 A.D.2d 747, 748). Based on the totality of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that no such risk was present here. Significantly, the complainant testified that he had an opportunity to clearly see the defendant's face and that he recognized her from the neighborhood. Where the defendant and the complainant were known to each other before the crime, suggestiveness is not a concern (see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552; see also, People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v. Lang, 122 A.D.2d 226).
Further, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.