Judgment affirmed.
Although evidence of a photo array and a lineup was suppressed, it was not error to permit the victim's in-court identification of defendant because the victim had ample opportunity to view defendant during the perpetration of the crime, which provided an independent basis therefore (see People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600; People v. Griffin, 106 A.D.2d 402; People v. Burnett, 81 A.D.2d 868). We further note that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to prove that the victim suffered "substantial pain" within the meaning of subdivision 9 of section 10.00 and subdivision 2 of section 160.10 Penal of the Penal Law. Therefore, defendant's motion for dismissal of the robbery in the second degree charge was properly denied (see People v. Rojas, 61 N.Y.2d 726, 727; People v. Coward, 100 A.D.2d 628). Finally, there is no basis for finding that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the sentence imposed or that we should exercise our discretion by reducing the sentence ( People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86-87). Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.