Opinion
June 18, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The complaining witness had occasion to observe the defendant for approximately 10 minutes after she had discovered him while he was in the process of burglarizing her apartment. Her observations were made at close range and under good lighting conditions. Under these circumstances, the County Court correctly determined that there was an independent basis for the witness's identification of the defendant during trial, and that suppression of the witness's in-court identification was not therefore required, even though she had participated in a suggestive pretrial identification procedure (cf., People v Allah, 158 A.D.2d 605; People v. Finnerty, 152 A.D.2d 635, 636; People v. Hill, 147 A.D.2d 500, 501).
The sentence imposed was appropriate under all of the circumstances of this case. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.