Judgment affirmed.
Although evidence of a showup was suppressed because of the suggestive procedure employed, it was not error to permit the victim's in-court identification of defendant inasmuch as his prior observations of defendant in the neighborhood, as well as the ample opportunity he had to view defendant during the perpetration of the crimes, provided an independent basis therefor (see People v. Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600; People v Burnett, 81 A.D.2d 868; People v. Johnson, 79 A.D.2d 617).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. Weinstein, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.