Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends, inter alia, that the initial photographic identification by the complainant was unduly suggestive and prejudicial and conducive to misidentification. We note that identification was not even at issue in the instant case; defense counsel explicitly conceded that point at trial and rested his case entirely on the claim of consent. In any case, the use of an array of six photographs, in which it was not alleged that defendant's photograph was distinct, provided a fair and constitutionally adequate sample ( see, People v. Haynes, 88 A.D.2d 1070). Furthermore, the complainant's excellent opportunity to view her attacker combined with her detailed descriptions, furnish an independent basis for reliability of the in-court identification.
It was clearly error for the trial court to assume that the court interpreter's translations were sacrosanct or, indeed, that his qualifications could not be challenged. Nevertheless, defendant made no record of any serious error in translation and provides us with no basis for reversal.
Defendant's remaining contentions lack merit. Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.