Opinion
April 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's motion to suppress the complainant's in-court identification was properly denied. The hearing court ruled that the complainant had an independent source for her in-court identification of the defendant, even though certain errors rendered the pretrial photo array and lineup procedures so unreliable that they had to be suppressed. We agree.
Even if a suggestive identification procedure has been employed by the police, a witness will nonetheless be permitted to identify the defendant in court if that identification is based on an independent source (see, People v Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173, 174). Such an independent source exists in this case. At the Wade hearing, the complainant testified that she observed the defendant for over five minutes before and during the robbery at close range and in good light. She also conversed with the defendant during that period.
The defendant also argues that the in-court identification should be suppressed because of the difference between the complainant's description of the robber given to the police and her testimony at the suppression hearing. Issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court and its findings should be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous (see, People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726). We find no basis to overturn the determination on this ground. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.