Opinion
January 10, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Arlene Silverman, J.).
Under the standards set forth in People v. Bleakley ( 69 N.Y.2d 490, 494-495), viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving due deference to the jury's findings on credibility, defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence, and the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence.
The complainant adequately described the perpetrator's clothing, and recognized the perpetrator's face, when the perpetrator was apprehended in close proximity of time and location to the crime (People v. Clark, 201 A.D.2d 332, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 870). The prompt, on the scene, confirmatory identification was made when the complainant's ability to make an identification was "`as fresh and reliable' as possible" (People v. Lorick, 173 A.D.2d 418, 419, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1128). The nature of the detention was limited (People v. Washington, 182 A.D.2d 520, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 840) and necessary to enable the police to "diligently pursu[e] a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly" (People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 241; see also, People v. Bora, 83 N.Y.2d 531, 535-536).
Since the defendant failed to challenge the reasonable doubt instruction, as well as the supplemental instructions which referred to the jurors' obligation to determine the existence of a reasonable doubt, these claims are unpreserved as a matter of law (People v. Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.