Opinion
February 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that suppression of identification testimony was required is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Rose, 112 A.D.2d 252, 253). In any event, while there was some testimony that the complainants sat together for up to 20 minutes after they first viewed a photographic array, and failed to identify any of the photographs, there is no evidence that the two witnesses consulted with or influenced each other (see, People v Cummings, 109 A.D.2d 748; cf., People v Badley, 122 A.D.2d 62, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 708). Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.