—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered October 27, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Leahy, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted based on ah April 11, 1992, incident during which he walked up to the victim, who was waiting at a bus stop, grabbed and spun him around, and shot him in the head at least three times. The defendant fled the scene and was arrested about a month later based on an identification by an eyewitness who knew the defendant, and had been shown a single photograph of him. Another witness, who provided testimony supporting the motive for the shoot
On appeal, the defendant contends that the out-of-court identifications were tainted and impermissibly suggestive, thereby warranting suppression of the in-court identifications.
It is well settled that the identification of a defendant by the use of a single photograph must be merely confirmatory, based on the eyewitnesses’ prior familiarity with the defendant, in order to overcome the suggestiveness of the procedure employed (People v Williamson,
The remaining contentions of the defendant are without merit.