Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the complainant's in-court identification should be suppressed as the product of a tainted photographic identification. However, this issue is not relevant in this case because the complainant knew the defendant prior to the robbery. Thus, the defendant's motion was properly denied (see, People v Johnson, 124 A.D.2d 748, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 713). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.