Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Approximately four weeks after a robbery, the complainant notified the police that he had seen his assailants in his neighborhood. The police canvassed the neighborhood with the complainant but could not locate the suspects. After the complainant gave the police a detailed description of his assailants, including the clothing that they were wearing, the police took the complainant home and continued to patrol his neighborhood. Approximately one hour later, the police responded to the scene of a disturbance in the complainant's neighborhood and saw a crowd of 25 to 30 youths in a parking lot. Upon determining that two of the youths matched the description of the suspects that had been given to them by the complainant, the police drove the complainant to the parking lot where he identified the defendant and his codefendant.
The police officer's statement to the complainant that he may have located the complainant's assailants did not render the identification procedure suggestive since the officer did not direct the complainant's attention to any particular youth who was in the crowd (see, e.g., People v Gaines, 196 A.D.2d 740). Thus, the record supports the hearing court's determination that the complainant's identification of the defendant was not the product of an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure (see, e.g., People v Clark, 85 N.Y.2d 886; cf., People v Dixon, 85 N.Y.2d 218).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.