Opinion
June 6, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Monserrate, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court erred by failing to suppress evidence of the complainant's identification of the defendant at the preliminary hearing, when, prior thereto, a police officer pointed out the defendant to the complainant. However, the complainant's trial testimony about her identification of the defendant at the preliminary hearing is harmless error. The complainant was able to see the defendant throughout most of the 30-minute robbery, from close range, under good lighting conditions (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969). The hearing court's determination that the complainant had an independent basis for her in-court identification is amply supported by the record (see, People v Jones, 125 A.D.2d 333, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 829).
We further find that the court properly allowed an audio and videotape of a lineup into evidence. The probative value of the tape as an aid to determine the reliability of the complainant's identification outweighed any prejudice. In addition, the court took care to redact the most prejudicial statements before allowing the jury to hear the tape (cf., United States v Brown, 644 F.2d 101, cert denied 454 U.S. 881; People v Collins, 60 N.Y.2d 214).
The defendant was not prejudiced by the court's failure to give an identification charge in the language which his counsel requested because the charge as given adequately covered the issue of identification (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273; People v Dory, 59 N.Y.2d 121).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.