Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A plea of guilty results in the forfeiture of appellate review of certain nonjurisdictional defects (see, People v. Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 317, affd 53 N.Y.2d 338). Thus, the defendant has forfeited his right to appellate review of the trial court's granting of the People's severance motion (cf., People v. Mitchell, 128 A.D.2d 731, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1007), his claim that certain identification testimony should have been suppressed on the ground that the People had failed to provide notice of their intent to offer such evidence at trial (see, CPL 710.70; 710.30 [3]; People v. Taylor, 65 N.Y.2d 1) and the trial court's ruling with regard to the defendant's Sandoval motion (see, People v. Zangrillo, 105 A.D.2d 822).
In addition, the defendant's contention that the search of his home was based on an unlawful search warrant was found to be without merit in a prior determination of this court (see, People v. Marinelli, 100 A.D.2d 597). We find no reason to disturb our previous decision.
Finally, there is no merit to the defendant's further argument that the hearing court improperly denied his request to suppress the proposed in-court identification of him by two witnesses. The People met their burden of demonstrating that a source existed for the proposed identification testimony of an eyewitness and a police officer, independent of any taint by the suggestive photographic identification procedures employed by the police (see, People v. Davis, 140 A.D.2d 618; People v. Scott, 140 A.D.2d 557; People v. Watkins, 121 A.D.2d 583, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 918). Each witness had an ample opportunity to closely observe the defendant, under adequate lighting conditions, and each one was able to describe the defendant in great detail and identify him with certainty. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.