Opinion
October 5, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Herbert Altman, J., Budd Goodman, J.
Defendant did not meet his burden of showing that the spontaneous identifications by each of the five complaining witnesses were the product of undue police suggestiveness, and thus the hearing court properly refused to compel production of any of the complainants (see, People v. Leach, 160 A.D.2d 623, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 941).
As there is no evidence that the victim whose robbery gave rise to the one consecutive sentence imposed was separately threatened, addressed or pushed, it was an abuse of discretion in the present circumstances to have the sentence on this count run consecutively (see, People v. Smith, 89 A.D.2d 881, 882).
We have considered the defendant's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.