Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court did not err in ruling that Fahey's in-court identification of the defendant would be permitted at trial inasmuch as Fahey's observation of the defendant's face for about one minute, in a well-lit office, at close range, sufficiently established an independent basis for her identification.
We also note that contrary to the defendant's claim, the gun was properly admitted into evidence (see, People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 452-453, People v. Del Vermo, 192 N.Y. 470). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.