Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered March 20, 2006, as amended March 22, 2006, convicting him of scheme to defraud in the second degree, burglary in the second degree (three counts), burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny (two counts), attempted petit larceny, and criminal impersonation in the second degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Chun, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court did not err in failing to suppress lineup identification testimony.
The procedures followed by the police in the first lineup were proper (see People v Celestin, 231 AD2d 736 [1996]; People v Morales, 134 AD2d 292 [1987]).
Moreover, there is no need for an independent source hearing unless the identification procedures were unduly suggestive (see People v Wilson, 5 NY3d 778, 780 [2005]). In light of our determination, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the People were required to demonstrate an independent source for the complainants’ in-court identification. Ritter, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.