Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that he was denied his right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 is without merit. Our review of the record clearly shows that substantial delays resulted from adjournments requested by or consented to by the defendant (CPL 30.30 [b]); time during which the defendant was without counsel through no fault of the court (CPL 30.30 [f]); and a continuance due to the unavailability of a material witness for Wade proceedings (CPL 30.30 [g] [i]), none of which was chargeable to the People.
The hearing court properly denied suppression of the challenged identification evidence since neither the photographic array nor the lineup was unduly suggestive. In any event, each witness had an independent basis for his or her in-court identification in that each had an ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the three robberies in question from a few feet away, under very good lighting conditions, for several minutes (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Whitaker, 126 A.D.2d 688, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1011; People v Malphurs, 111 A.D.2d 266, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 616, 920).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.