Opinion
May 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record reveals that there was no suggestive conduct by the police during the lineup procedure creating a substantial likelihood of misidentification (see, People v. Andrews, 125 A.D.2d 478; People v. Sorensen, 112 A.D.2d 1016, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 767). Moreover, the three complainants all had a chance to observe the defendant for a substantial period under favorable conditions providing an independent basis for their identification (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Sorensen, supra).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it is sufficient, as a matter of law, to support the defendant's conviction of the crimes charged (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The court did not err in permitting cross-examination of the defendant regarding his prior conviction for attempted burglary since both sides agreed prior to the trial to allow such cross-examination. The probative value of the evidence with regard to the defendant's credibility outweighed any prejudicial effect in light of the limited scope of the testimony (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Nor was the defendant denied effective assistance of counsel because the court, sua sponte, did not assign new counsel when it was learned that the defendant and his attorney were having some disagreements as to strategy (see, People v. Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199).
There is no indication that the prosecution exceeded the bounds of propriety in its summation. The prosecutor commented upon these matters to be determined by the jury and remained within the four corners of the evidence (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Brensic, 119 A.D.2d 281, lv granted 69 N.Y.2d 719).
Finally, based on this record, there is no reason to modify the sentence (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The additional issues raised by the defendant have been examined and are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.