Opinion
(Ind. No. 243/97)
Submitted June 26, 2001.
August 20, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered February 13, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and assault in the second 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 identification testimony.
Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison [Sherri Lee Keene] of counsel), for appellant.
William L. Murphy, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Jonathan J. Silbermann and David Frey of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the hearing court improperly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the complainant's identification testimony on the ground that the pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive is without merit. "A pretrial identification procedure may be considered impermissibly suggestive and, therefore, violative of due process, only when it is the result of improper conduct by law enforcement officials" (People v. Darnell, 146 A.D.2d 583). Here, the complainant viewed a photograph anonymously left in his mailbox. There was no police involvement and, therefore, it may not be considered suggestive (see, People v. Darnell, supra; People v. Whitaker, 126 A.D.2d 688). Furthermore, the pretrial photographic identification procedure was fair and not suggestive. Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the complainant's in-court identification testimony (see, People v. Almonte, 135 A.D.2d 824).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.