DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the in-court identification testimony was improper because it was based upon impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures. 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. Brown, 187 A.D.2d 662, 663). There was sufficient evidence at the independent source hearing to support a determination that the eyewitness had an adequate opportunity to observe the defendant, and thus the in-court identification was proper.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.