On appeal, defendant claims that the identification testimony should have been suppressed. Great weight must be accorded the determination of the hearing court, with its particular advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses (People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761), and its determination will not be disturbed unless the testimony presented by the People is "inherently incredible or improbable" (People v. Samuels, 68 A.D.2d 663, 666, affd 50 N.Y.2d 1035). The record indicates that the People have met their burden of demonstrating the nonsuggestive nature of the police procedures with respect to the photographic identification (People v. Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411, 416) and the lineup (United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.