Opinion
June 13, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Showup identifications are generally suspect and disfavored; however, 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 (People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523). Here, the record contains no evidence of any police conduct that would have rendered the showup in question unduly suggestive (see, People v. Jackson, 180 A.D.2d 756). In addition, the subsequent lineup identification of the defendant was not "so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification" (People v. Reyes, 119 A.D.2d 596). We further find that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit as he failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's actions (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.