Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony is granted, and a new trial is ordered, to be preceded by a hearing to determine whether an independent source for the identification exists.
That branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony should have been granted. The alleged photocopy of the photographic array admitted into evidence at the hearing and the testimony concerning the array failed to provide a sufficient basis to overcome any inference that the array was suggestive ( cf. People v Morciglio, 29 AD3d 710, 711; People v Coleman, 2 AD3d 1045, 1046).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.