Opinion
January 9, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J., Santagata, J.).
Ordered that the judgments and the amended judgment are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the hearing court properly concluded that neither the photographic arrays nor the lineup conducted was unduly suggestive (see, People v Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611; People v Rudan, 112 A.D.2d 255). Moreover, even if the identification procedures were found to be improper, suppression of the complainants' in-court testimony would not be required (see, People v Thomas, 133 A.D.2d 867). At bar, the People have established by clear and convincing evidence that the complainants' in-court identifications were supported by an independent source (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98). The record reveals that both complainants had ample opportunity to observe the defendant at close proximity during the commission of the robberies.
Since the basis of the violation of probation was the defendant's commission of the robberies, the amended judgment must also be affirmed. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.