Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court correctly found that the first identification of the defendant, which occurred shortly after the crime, was not police initiated since the complainant pointed out the defendant and the codefendant to the police without any prompting. The second identification occurred after the police pursued the fleeing defendant and brought him back to where the complainant and other perpetrators were located, and was merely the complainant's confirmation that the defendant was the same person whom he had previously identified as the assailant (see, People v. Soto, 87 A.D.2d 618; see also, People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020, rearg dismissed 27 N.Y.2d 733).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.