Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, and was permissible because only minutes earlier the complainant had independently recognized defendant as the person who had robbed her three days earlier ( see, People v. Brown, 235 A.D.2d 302, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1032; People v. Martindale, 202 A.D.2d 158, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 912).
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on alleged jury taint, following appropriate inquiry of each juror by the court and counsel, which revealed that none of the remaining jurors possessed a state of mind that would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict ( see, People v. Evans, 192 A.D.2d 337, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1072).
Defendant's redacted arrest photograph was properly admitted to demonstrate the change, as established by the record, in defendant's appearance between the date of arrest and the time of trial ( People v. Nogueras, 196 A.D.2d 448, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 900), and to rebut the defense position that the complainant had not accurately described and identified defendant as the robber ( see, People v. Randall, 227 A.D.2d 131, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 940).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.