The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The multiple photo identification procedures were not inherently suggestive (see, People v. Chapman, 161 A.D.2d 1156 lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 854), and the fact that each viewing involved hundreds of photographs minimized the possibility of suggestiveness. The record supports the court's finding that a witness's identification of defendant was not influenced by the presence of the witness's father, a nonidentifying witness.
The court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion, which properly balanced the probative value of defendant's prior convictions against their prejudicial effect (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459; People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.