DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in determining that there was an independent source for the victim's in-court identification of the defendant as his robber and attacker. An in-court identification of a defendant by an eyewitness is proper, notwithstanding unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures, where it is based upon the eyewitness's independent observation of the defendant ( see People v. Cotto, 268 A.D.2d 441; People v. Brown, 187 A.D.2d 662). The victim had a clear and unobstructed view of the defendant before he entered the car in question and while he was sitting in the rear of the car, under well-lit conditions, for a lengthy period of time during the commission of the crime. As such, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there was an independent source for the identification ( see People v. Brown, 293 A.D.2d 686).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.