Opinion
January 28, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Although the photo array from which the complainant identified defendant was suggestive, suppression of her potential in-court identification testimony was not warranted since the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was ample opportunity for her to observe defendant during commission of the crime so as to provide a sufficient independent basis therefor (see People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600; People v. Burnett, 81 A.D.2d 868; People v. Johnson, 79 A.D.2d 617). Titone, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and O'Connor, JJ., concur.