Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied suppression of statements made by the defendant to the police. The defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v Arizona ( 384 US 436), and he waived, his rights prior to making the statements in question ( see, North Carolina v Butler, 441 US 369; People v Sirno, 76 NY2d 967).
Upon our review of the record, including the photographic array, we conclude that the defendant's photograph was not unduly suggestive because he was the only person depicted wearing dreadlocks ( see, People v Berry, 201 AD2d 489, 490). Therefore, it was unnecessary to elicit evidence from the complainant concerning an independent source for an incourt identification ( see, People v Geames, 157 AD2d 744).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.