Opinion
September 14, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the physical evidence was properly admitted as it was obtained pursuant to a lawful arrest ( see, People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594, 602; People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210; People v. Ortiz, 229 A.D.2d 451). Moreover, the showup identification procedure, in which the victim identified the defendant in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, was reasonable and not unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Brnja., 50 N.Y.2d 366).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.