Opinion
January 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the stop and temporary investigative detention for purposes of a prompt on-the-scene confirmatory identification was proper (People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234). The perpetrators were located near the scene of the crime, and the lapse of some 45 minutes did not vitiate the validity of the showup (see, People v. Maybell, 198 A.D.2d 108, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 927; People v. Horn, 197 A.D.2d 420, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 897). We reject defendant's remaining contentions in this regard. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving due deference to the jury's finding on credibility under the standards set forth in People v. Bleakley ( 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495), we find that defendant was convicted by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence.
Defendant failed to preserve properly his bolstering claim and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
We cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion (see generally, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 U.S. 846) in limiting the re-direct examination (People v Bethune, 105 A.D.2d 262, 269) especially as to matters having only a marginal connection to credibility, and no relevance to the issue of guilt (People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 262-263, cert denied 423 U.S. 861; cf., People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 248).
Defendant failed to preserve any of his present challenges to the court's interactions with the deliberating jury (People v DeRosario, 81 N.Y.2d 801, 803), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, the challenges are without merit.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.