Opinion
October 5, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the complainant's identification testimony should have been suppressed due to the alleged suggestiveness of the photographic identification procedures is without merit. We agree with the hearing court's determination that the People clearly established an independent basis for both the in-court and lineup identifications (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Watkins, 121 A.D.2d 583, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 918; People v. Lynch, 117 A.D.2d 823, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 670). The complainant had ample opportunity to observe the defendant's unique features at close range throughout the 1 1/2-hour incident. Furthermore, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including both direct and circumstantial evidence of identity, admission of evidence which implicitly bolstered the identification testimony was harmless error (see, People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v. Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584). Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.