Opinion
May 28, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dubin, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends that the evidence of guilt is insufficient, particularly because the complainant's identification was based upon a brief observation of defendant at about 6:30 A.M., in dusk-like light. He also claims that he was denied a fair trial on several grounds.
In reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the People, as we are obligated to do, and bearing in mind that credibility is a factor to be determined by the jury, we find that "the record contains evidence sufficient in quantity and quality to support the verdict" ( People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757).
Moreover, we find no merit to defendant's contention that the pretrial identification procedures were impermissively suggestive ( see, e.g., People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and also find no merit to them.
Lazer, J.P., Thompson, O'Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.