Opinion
February 1, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the hearing court's determination that the identification procedures used by the police in this case were not unduly suggestive. In addition, we agree that the station house viewing of the defendant by a witness was accidental, unarranged, not attributable to any misconduct on the part of the police, and was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Diaz, 155 A.D.2d 612; People v Sims, 150 A.D.2d 402). We note that there is ample evidence in the record to support the hearing court's alternative determination that the witness had an independent basis for making an in-court identification of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony was properly denied (see, People v Ruggiero, 177 A.D.2d 723; People v Williams, 126 A.D.2d 766). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.