Opinion
March 31, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
On appeal the defendant claims that the branch of his pretrial motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony was improperly denied. Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the record fully supports the hearing court's conclusion that the complaining witness had ample opportunity in which to view the defendant during the perpetration of the crime, thus providing an independent basis for the complainant's prospective in-court identification testimony (see, People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600; People v. Griffin, 106 A.D.2d 402; People v. Anderson, 107 A.D.2d 751). We further note that the complainant testified as to an earlier encounter with the defendant, one or two months prior to the incident underlying indictment No. 3794/80, for a period of 30 to 45 minutes.
There is no reason to disturb the defendant's conviction pursuant to indictment No. 192/81. Mollen, P.J., Rubin, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.