Opinion
June 6, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The suppression court properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress a showup identification of him and property recovered from the search of the defendant made after the arrest. The determination of the suppression court, with its advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, must be accorded great weight (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759). The fact that the defendant was handcuffed when the complainant identified him at a showup prior to the arrest did not so taint the identification as to require suppression (People v Lewis, 123 A.D.2d 716, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 830). The arresting officer had probable cause to arrest based on the facts that the defendant matched the description given on the police radio run, that the officer arrived at the scene within minutes of the report, that due to the lateness of the hour the residential street was deserted except for the defendant, and that the defendant refused to stop at the officer's request. The defendant's refusal to stop was suspicious, evidencing a state of mind of one who has just committed a crime. Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances known to the officer, he had probable cause to arrest and search the defendant incidental to the legal arrest (see, People v Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325).
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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Although in the instant case certain inconsistencies appear in the testimony of the witnesses, "deference is accorded to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor" (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
The sentence imposed, which was the minimum permitted, was not harsh or excessive. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.