Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the lineup and in-court identifications were tainted by the prior single photographic identification and that the People did not establish an independent basis for the subsequent identifications by clear and convincing evidence (see, People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600). This issue was decided against the defendant by the hearing court, whose determination is entitled to great weight. We find no basis upon which to disturb its determination (see, People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759). The lineup was held more than seven months after the photographic identification and was thus sufficiently attenuated in time to obviate any taint (see, People v Watts, 130 A.D.2d 695, 696, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 718; People v Ruffino, 110 A.D.2d 198).
In addition, the witness observed the defendant from a short distance under good lighting conditions and thus there was an ample independent basis for his lineup and in-court identifications (see, People v Jones, 125 A.D.2d 333, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 829; People v Satchell, 116 A.D.2d 753, 754, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 889).
We have considered the defendant's other contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.