ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The record of the Rodriguez hearing (see People v. Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445), supports the hearing court's determination that the jewelry store worker who purchased jewelry from the defendant on several occasions was sufficiently familiar with him that her identification of him from a photograph was merely confirmatory (see People v. Rodriguez, supra; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Simmons, 247 A.D.2d 494; People v. Ortega, 237 A.D.2d 108). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Notably, both Ms. Richards and Ms. Johnson knew the defendant's name, thereby independently "establish[ing] that [their] identification[s] [were] confirmatory" (People v. Bolden, 197 A.D.2d 528 [2d Dept. 1993], appeal denied 82 N.Y.2d 922 [1994]; see, People v Rodriguez, 47 A.D.3d 417 [1st Dept 2008], appeal denied 10 N.Y.3d 816 [2008], in which the Appellate Division held that the fact that the "victim knew defendant's first name" was an important factor in "ensur[ing] that the identification was not susceptible to police suggestion"; see also, People v. Ortega, 237 A.D.2d 108 [1st Dept. 1997], appeal denied 89 N.Y.2d 1039 [1997], in which the Appellate Division held that where the witness had seen the defendant frequently for a year and knew his nickname, he knew the defendant "so well as to be impervious to police suggestion" and People v. Legette, 256 A.D.2d 593 [2nd Dept. 1998], appeal denied, 93 N.Y.2d 854 [1998], in which the Second Department upheld a finding that the complainant's identification of the defendant was confirmatory, noting that the two were acquaintances who lived near each other and played basketball together and finding that it was "significant" that the victim identified the defendant by his nickname).