People v. Houston (219 A.D.2d 673, 1995)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.), rendered June 16, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People demonstrated that the challenged identification procedures were sufficiently attenuated from his unlawful arrest (see, People v Pleasant, 54 NY2d 972, cert denied 455 US 924). Nor is there any merit to the defendant’s contention that the photographic array was unduly suggestive (see, People v Devonish, 165 AD2d 723).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, issues of credibility and reliability of identification testimony are primarily questions of fact for the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84; People v Androvett, 135 AD2d 640; People v Rosa, 125 AD2d 345; People v Caldwell, 125 AD2d 402). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.