Opinion
July 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying suppression of the showup identification made by the complainant near the scene of the crime. While showup procedures are generally disfavored they are permissible where, as in this case, they are employed in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Jackson, 180 A.D.2d 756; People v. Holder, 178 A.D.2d 436; People v. Adams, 163 A.D.2d 318). The fact that the defendant was handcuffed and in the company of the police did not render the showup constitutionally infirm (see, People v Whitney, 158 A.D.2d 734; People v. Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325).
We also find that the prosecutor's cross-examination of a defense witness who invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not constitute reversible error. Absent a conscious and flagrant attempt by the prosecutor to build a case out of the inferences arising from the use of the testimonial privilege or without some indication that the witness's refusal to testify adds critical weight to the People's case in a form not subject to cross-examination, reversal is not warranted (see, People v. Walker, 192 A.D.2d 631; People v. Jones, 138 A.D.2d 405; see also, People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294). The prosecutor did not call the witness in question to the stand, but merely attempted to cross-examine her in order to impeach her credibility. The prosecutor's questions related to acts committed by the witness which were probative of her credibility. No prejudice will generally be presumed to flow from the refusal of a witness to answer questions concerning acts committed by her and unrelated to the defendant's alleged crime (see, People v. Jones, supra; People v. Malphurs, 111 A.D.2d 266).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.