Opinion
June 6, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (O'Brien, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court's determination that the People met their burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identifications were not tainted by the improper pretrial identifications was not erroneous, given the length of time and the conditions under which the witnesses had an opportunity to view their assailant, both before and during commission of the crime (see, People v Watts, 130 A.D.2d 695, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 718; People v Jones, 125 A.D.2d 333, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 829).
The defendant was not denied due process, his right to a fair trial or his right against self-incrimination when, after a complaining witness testified as to a peculiarity with respect to the skin pigmentation on his assailant's knee, the prosecutor asked the court to direct the defendant to expose his knee to the witness (see, People v Mountain, 66 N.Y.2d 197; People v Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, appeal dismissed 444 U.S. 891). We note that the prosecutor's request was denied (see, People v Rumph, 128 Misc.2d 438). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.