Opinion
October 23, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On the instant appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the photographic identification procedure utilized by the police in the instant case tainted a subsequent lineup identification procedure which was itself suggestive and that there was insufficient proof of an independent source for the witnesses' in-court identifications. Accordingly, it is the defendant's position that both the lineup and in-court identifications should have been suppressed.
We disagree with the defendant's arguments.
The record indicates that the lineup procedure (1) was held more than five months after the photographic identification procedure, and was sufficiently attenuated in time from it to nullify any possible taint, and (2) was not itself suggestive (see, People v Mullen, 143 A.D.2d 849; People v Watts, 130 A.D.2d 695; People v Ruffino, 110 A.D.2d 198). The record also supports the County Court's further determination that any in-court identifications by the complainants were supported by an independent source (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v Nurse, 142 A.D.2d 738; People v Smalls, 115 A.D.2d 783).
In any event, we have reviewed the defendant's arguments with respect to the photographic identification procedure, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v Stuckey, 147 A.D.2d 724; People v Azzara, 138 A.D.2d 495; People v Mason, 123 A.D.2d 720; People v Dozier, 131 A.D.2d 587).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining argument, that the court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender treatment, and find it to be without merit (see, People v Collins, 149 A.D.2d 606; People v Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 633; People v McNeil, 127 A.D.2d 854). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.