Opinion
February 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred by denying suppression of the showup identifications that were made by two witnesses near the scene of the crime. While simultaneous showup procedures are generally disfavored (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241), they are permissible when, 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 Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Burns, 133 A.D.2d 642).
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 (CPL 470.15).
The sentence that was imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.