Judgments affirmed.
We agree with Criminal Term that each of the eyewitnesses to the respective crimes had an independent source for an in-court identification of the defendant (see, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200; Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114). Moreover, the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to counsel when compelled to stand in a prearraignment lineup, without his attorney being present, despite the arresting officer's knowledge as to pending, unrelated charges involving the defendant (see, People v. Hawkins, 55 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 459 U.S. 846; People v. Robertson, 109 A.D.2d 806). We further note that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow testimony as to a purported declaration against penal interest. The defendant, as the proponent of this statement, did not make a showing as to corroborating circumstances which would insure its reliability (see, People v Shortridge, 65 N.Y.2d 309, 312; People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154, 167, 169-170).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, in his main brief and in his supplemental pro se brief and find them to be either unpreserved for review or without merit. Gibbons, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.