Opinion
June 1, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence at trial did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was not sufficiently reliable to support his conviction. We disagree.
The record reveals that the defendant — whom the complainant recognized as having been in his grocery store a few days earlier — entered the store with another robber at about 2:30 P.M. and stood facing the complainant for approximately three minutes prior to the announcement of the robbery. The complainant testified that the store was well lit and that he was able to get a good look at the defendant's face. Additionally, another witness present in the grocery store, who also identified the defendant as the thief, testified that she observed defendant's face from a distance of approximately three feet. Subsequently, both eyewitnesses viewed lineups and identified the defendant as the robber. In light of the foregoing, and considering that the "responsibility for resolving questions relating to identification and credibility of the witnesses lies with the trier of fact" (People v Herriot, 110 A.D.2d 851, 852), we perceive no reason to disturb the jury's decision to credit the identification testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. Moreover, we find that the photographic and lineup identification procedures employed here were not "`so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification'" (People v Malphurs, 111 A.D.2d 266, 268, quoting Simmons v United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384; cf., People v Prendergast, 118 A.D.2d 602, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 671; see also, People v Bookhart, 117 A.D.2d 739; People v Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173). In any event, the record supports the hearing court's determination that the witnesses' identifications were supported by an independent basis (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Bookhart, supra, at 740; People v Smalls, supra; People v Rivera, 108 A.D.2d 935).
Finally, the court's alibi and reasonable doubt charges correctly conveyed to the jury the applicable principles of law (see, People v Victor, 62 N.Y.2d 374). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.