Opinion
May 22, 1987
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court correctly concluded that testimony identifying defendant was admissible. The showup procedure utilized here was not unduly suggestive and was justified in view of the fact that defendant was apprehended within minutes of the crime and close to the crime scene thus allowing for prompt identification (see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024; People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366). Further, the testimony of the victim at the Wade hearing established that there was an independent basis for an in-court identification (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Siplin, 120 A.D.2d 933).