Opinion
July 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly declined to suppress the in-court identification of the defendant by a witness to the robbery. The testimony adduced at the Wade hearing establishes that the witness observed the defendant at close range, under good lighting conditions, for approximately two minutes, and that the witness gave a detailed description of the defendant to the police the day after the robbery. Thus, although the hearing court found that the lineup conducted by the police was impermissibly suggestive, there was an independent source for the witness's in-court identification of the defendant (see, Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98; People v. Reid, 175 A.D.2d 815; People v. Greer, 173 A.D.2d 557; People v. Tomilin, 131 A.D.2d 897; People v. Owens, 131 A.D.2d 602; Matter of Michael J., 117 A.D.2d 602).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting the complainant to describe the defendant's appearance at the time of the crime is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Clarke, 81 N.Y.2d 777; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Thompson, 203 A.D.2d 497). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The complainant gave a description of the defendant to the police prior to the suggestive photographic identification that was conducted by the police. Thus, the complainant's in-court description of the defendant at the time of the crime was not tainted by the photographic identification, and there was no basis for excluding it (see, People v. Moss, 80 N.Y.2d 857; People v. Sanders, 66 N.Y.2d 906; People v. Myrick, 66 N.Y.2d 903; People v. Jones, 163 A.D.2d 911).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.