Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends, inter alia, that the photo array and subsequent lineup identifications by complainant were unduly suggestive, prejudicial and conducive to misidentification. We agree with Criminal Term that the procedures employed were proper and not constitutionally defective (see, People v Rolston, 109 A.D.2d 854, 855; People v Haynes, 88 A.D.2d 1070; People v Chamberlain, 96 A.D.2d 959). We have viewed the photo array and find that it was not prejudicial to defendant (cf. People v Shea, 54 A.D.2d 722). Similarly, after viewing photographs of both lineups we find that the lineups were not unduly suggestive (People v Scott, 114 A.D.2d 915; cf. People v Burwell, 26 N.Y.2d 331; People v Lebron, 46 A.D.2d 776). Moreover, we agree with Criminal Term that the complainant had an independent source for her in-court identification of defendant (see, Neil v Biggers, 409 U.S. 188; Manson v Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98; People v Martin, 101 A.D.2d 869, 870; cf Dickerson v Fogg, 692 F.2d 238).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.