Opinion
September 25, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the hearing court which, upon remittal, found that GiGi Henriquez's identification of the defendant had a source independent of the suggestive lineup (see, People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600). The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that Henriquez viewed the defendant's face continuously from a distance of approximately three feet for a period of two to three minutes. The area in which the robbery took place was well lit and her description of the defendant given to the police shortly after the robbery was detailed (see, People v. Rodriquez, 137 A.D.2d 847; People v. Gantt, 136 A.D.2d 651).
We note that in light of this court's previous determination that the lineup viewed by Henriquez was suggestive (see, People v. Moore, 143 A.D.2d 1056, supra), it was error for the court to allow Henriquez to testify to identifying the defendant from the lineup. However, we find that in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the error was harmless and does not warrant granting a new trial (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either academic in light of this court's prior order (see, People v. Moore, supra), or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.