Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that the victim's identification was the result of unduly suggestive police procedures is without merit. The defendant was identified by the victim after she herself led the police back to the apartment where he resided in which many of the repeated acts of rape and sodomy, at knifepoint, had occurred (see, People v. Mack, 116 A.D.2d 593, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 886). Such prompt identifications have been described as the most reliable sources of identification evidence and are indicative of good police work (see, People v. Veal, 106 A.D.2d 418, 419).
Finally, the record supports the hearing court's determination that the police entry into the apartment where the defendant was arrested was pursuant to the consent of the defendant's mother, who owned the building in question (see, People v. Grosfeld, 58 N.Y.2d 887; cf., People v. DePace, 127 A.D.2d 847, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Richards, 119 A.D.2d 597, 598, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1056). Eiber, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.