Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Although there was no direct evidence of the defendant's possession of a firearm during the robbery at bar, 2 witnesses identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators of the robbery, and 4 witnesses testified to the use of a firearm by at least one of the defendant's accomplices (see, Penal Law § 20.00). As such, we find the defendant's conviction of robbery in the first degree is more than amply supported by the weight of the evidence (see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270; People v Jackson, 44 N.Y.2d 935).
We note that the hearing court was correct in allowing the witnesses to identify the defendant at trial. Both trial witnesses who identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators of the robbery had an ample opportunity to view the defendant in a well-lit room and thus their ability to identify the defendant in court was based on their independent recollections of the initial encounter with the defendant and was not influenced by the pretrial identifications which were suppressed as products of the defendant's unlawful arrest (see, United States v Crews, 445 U.S. 463; People v Young, 55 N.Y.2d 419, cert denied 459 U.S. 848; People v Pleasant, 54 N.Y.2d 972, cert denied 455 U.S. 924; People v Kinard, 130 A.D.2d 768, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 801; People v Brown, 130 A.D.2d 500, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 643; People v Stevens, 109 A.D.2d 856).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.