Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The record supports the hearing court's finding that the accidental station house viewing of defendant by one of the victims resulted from the victim's failure to follow police instructions and was not a suggestive police-arranged identification procedure ( see, People v. Clark, 85 N.Y.2d 886, 889; People v. Nimmons 177 A.D.2d 444, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 922).
According due deference to the court's assessment of the defense attorneys proffered explanation for the peremptory challenge that was disallowed, we find that the court properly concluded that the explanation was pretextual ( People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, affd 500 U.S. 352).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.