Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record amply supports the determinations that the photo and lineup identification procedures were not unduly suggestive (see, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847). In any event, there was an independent basis for the identifications (see, People v. Malloy, supra).
The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a mandatory surcharge upon the defendant in accordance with Penal Law § 60.35, as there is no showing that the payment of the surcharge would work an unreasonable hardship upon him (see, CPL 420.35). If at the end of his imprisonment, the defendant finds himself unable to pay the surcharge, he may then move for a waiver (see, CPL 420.35; People v. Perrine, 111 A.D.2d 193; People v West, 124 Misc.2d 622). Mangano, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.