Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the identification testimony of the complaining witness was tainted by a suggestive joint-viewing of a photographic array and by a suggestive lineup. We disagree.
In cases where the defendant and the complainant are known to one another "`suggestiveness' is not a concern" (People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552; see, People v Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915). Identification procedures in such cases are "more in the nature of a confirmation rather than an identification", and, therefore, the issue of suggestiveness is not relevant (see, People v Lang, 122 A.D.2d 226, 227).
The record contains testimony that the complaining witness knew the defendant as a fellow occupant of her apartment building and that the building's superintendent had introduced the defendant to her as the building's manager. Since the complainant knew the defendant, the issue of the suggestiveness of the identification procedures does not warrant suppression of the identification testimony.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Blake, 35 N.Y.2d 331; People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.