Opinion
February 16, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the hearing court properly concluded that neither the photographic array nor the pretrial lineup conducted at bar was unduly suggestive (see, People v Middleton, 128 A.D.2d 554, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1007). Moreover, even if the identification procedures were found to be improper, such finding would not require the suppression of the complainant's in-court testimony (People v Thomas, 133 A.D.2d 867). At bar, the People have established by clear and convincing evidence that the complainant's in-court identification was supported by an independent source (see, People v Tomilin, 131 A.D.2d 897, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 755; People v Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173). The record reveals that the complainant had an ample opportunity to observe the defendant at close proximity prior to and during the commission of the robbery.
Similarly without merit is the defendant's contention that the court's Sandoval ruling was erroneous. At bar, the record establishes that the court conducted the requisite balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect in rendering its Sandoval ruling and we perceive no abuse of discretion in the court's resolution of the issue (see, People v Giannini, 130 A.D.2d 506, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 646).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.