Opinion
September 9, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The hearing court correctly determined that the witnesses' identification of defendant all had sufficient independent sources, and that, under the circumstances, the viewing of a photograph of defendant found in an automobile believed to have been involved in the robbery, did not taint the identifications. Neither is defendant entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor allegedly improperly questioned alibi witnesses about their failure to come forward; rather, the foundation suggested by People v Dawson ( 50 N.Y.2d 311, 321) was laid, and, as to defendant's brother, the court did inquire into whether or not his failure to answer the District Attorney's questions was a result of counsel's advice. We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, O'Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.