| People v Small |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07069 [110 AD3d 1106] |
| October 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Omar Small, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J.Twersky of counsel; Brandon D. O'Neil on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Gary, J.), rendered April 27, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the third degree andpetit larceny, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up forreview the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in determining that there wasan independent source for the victim's in-court identification of the defendant as herassailant. An in-court identification of a defendant by an eyewitness is proper,notwithstanding unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures, where it is basedupon the eyewitness's independent observation of the defendant (see People v Paris, 2 AD3d881 [2003]; People v Cotto, 268 AD2d 441 [2000]; People v Brown,187 AD2d 662, 663 [1992]). The victim testified that she had a clear view of herassailant's face at very close range, under well-lit conditions, throughout the length of thecommission of the crime and, as a result, she was able to give the police a description ofthe individual, which included details of his facial features, height, weight, and clothing(see People v Colon, 32AD3d 791 [2006]; People v Brown, 293 AD2d 686 [2002]; People vPrice, 256 AD2d 596 [1998]; People v Quinitchett, 210 AD2d 438, 439[1994]; People v Steward, 206 AD2d 397, 398 [1994]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court correctly determined that there was an independent source for theidentification (see People vParis, 2 AD3d 881 [2003]; People v Brown, 187 AD2d 662 [1992]),and properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress identification testimony. Eng, P.J., Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.