Opinion
February 3, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Based upon the complainant's testimony that she viewed the perpetrators for more than half an hour under adequate lighting conditions, during which time they were as close as four feet from her, the hearing court did not err in concluding that there was a sufficient independent source for an in-court identification. The pretrial identification was not so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification (see, Neil v Biggers, 409 U.S. 188; Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377).
Defendant forfeited his right to challenge the court's adverse Sandoval ruling by his plea of guilty (People v. Griffin, 110 A.D.2d 850). Were we to reach the merits of defendant's Sandoval contention, we would hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the People could cross-examine defendant regarding the facts underlying two prior convictions which were of a similar nature to the instant charges if he chose to testify at a trial, since those prior crimes were highly probative of defendant's willingness to put his self-interest before that of society (see, People v. Williams, 108 A.D.2d 767). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.