Opinion
October 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Richard Failla, J., Budd Goodman, J.
We find no basis to disturb the motion court's findings that these prompt on-the-scene investigatory showups were not rendered unduly suggestive because defendant was handcuffed, or unnecessary because of a prior, equivocal, spontaneous identification ( see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543; People v. Matthews, 199 A.D.2d 59, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 927; People v Lawhorn, 199 A.D.2d 123, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 855). The existence of a prior, spontaneous identification in a "fast-moving, uninterrupted array of activity" should not preclude a second, police-arranged identification if necessary to the "objective that the police have reasonable assurances that they have arrested or detained the right person" ( People v. Duuvon, supra, at 545). Defendant's contentions concerning lighting raised a factual dispute to be resolved by the fact-finder. Since police raised the suspects' hoods at the request of the complainants as an aid to identification, rather than as a police device to prompt an identification, no suggestiveness inhered in this procedure.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.