Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends that it was error not to suppress the complaining witness's in-court identification of him since there was no sufficient independent basis for it. The record reveals that there was indeed a sufficient independent basis for admitting the in-court identification testimony. The witness testified that the robbery occurred on a bright sunny afternoon. He observed defendant for four or five minutes during the robbery. The People "establish[ed] by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification [was] based upon observations of the suspect other than the [suppressed] identification" ( United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240), and the in-court identification was therefore properly admitted ( see, People v. Cobenais, 39 N.Y.2d 968; People v. Ganci, 27 N.Y.2d 418, cert denied 402 U.S. 924; People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.