Opinion
January 16, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the hearing court properly denied suppression of the showup identification made by the complainant within 10 minutes after the defendant was apprehended near the scene of the robbery. This showup occurred in close time and proximity to the event while the complainant's memory was fresh and, under the circumstances, the showup was not unduly suggestive (see, People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Montanez, 149 A.D.2d 627; People v. Mitchell, 131 A.D.2d 601; People v. Ford, 110 A.D.2d 847; People v. Soto, 87 A.D.2d 618).
The court's Sandoval ruling that the People might conduct limited inquiry as to two of the defendant's prior convictions to impeach his credibility was not improper (see, People v Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547; People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Gill, 138 A.D.2d 738; People v Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881).
As the defendant failed to establish that a legal issue exists with regard to his appeal which cannot be resolved by the reconstructed record of the missing transcript of the proceedings on one of the days of trial, reversal on this ground is not warranted (see, People v. Glass, 43 N.Y.2d 283; People v. Rivera, 39 N.Y.2d 519; People v. Johnson, 145 A.D.2d 572; People v. Suren, 131 A.D.2d 896; People v. Smalls, 116 A.D.2d 675; People v Acevedo, 104 A.D.2d 946). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.