Opinion
April 15, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred by denying the branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. His appellate contention is based on a ground not raised before the Supreme Court, either in his moving papers or at the suppression hearing. Therefore, this issue was not preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011). In any event, the hearing court correctly determined that the simultaneous showup identifications of the defendant by the complainant and a witness, both made near the crime scene and within several minutes of the robbery, were not unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Laing, 221 A.D.2d 662).
Also unpreserved for our review is the issue of the legal sufficiency of the trial evidence ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v. Knight, 192 A.D.2d 676; People v. Armistead, 178 A.D.2d 607; People v. Crutchfield, 149 A.D.2d 857). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15; People v. Griffin, 161 A.D.2d 799).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.