The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court's determinations concerning identification. We note that the victim had an extensive opportunity to observe defendant at the time of the crime. Contrary to defendant's argument, the trial evidence establishes that the victim unwaveringly identified defendant at each of the identification procedures, and that any confusion on this point was the result of a mistranslation by the ad hoc interpreter utilized at the initial procedure.
The hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony. The initial photo array from which the victim selected defendant's photograph was properly conducted and not suggestive. Subsequent viewings by the victim of defendant's photograph were for the purpose of clarification and confirmation of an existing identification (see, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740-741; People v. Scott, 157 A.D.2d 593, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 924). In any event, these displays of defendant's photograph were sufficiently attenuated from the properly conducted lineup so as not to taint that procedure (see,People v. Greenwood, 156 A.D.2d 159, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 868; People v. Smith, 140 A.D.2d 647, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 961).
Evidence of defendant's prior burglary conviction, improperly admitted, in our view, on the issue of identity (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 293), could not have caused defendant any prejudice in this nonjury trial, where the court is presumed capable of disregarding the prejudicial aspect of the evidence (see, People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 406; People v. Martinez, 278 A.D.2d 146, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 831 146). Moreover, the court made it clear that it was not considering this testimony as evidence of criminal propensity (see,People v. Molloy, 282 A.D.2d 311, 96 N.Y.2d 922). Furthermore, at the time defendant waived a jury trial, the trial court was already aware of defendant's prior conviction as a result of the People's Molineux application.
A review of the existing record demonstrates that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714). There is no reason to believe that any of the tactics that he now suggests should have been employed by his trial counsel would have had any impact.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.