Opinion
April 1, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J., at suppression hearing; Edwin Torres, J., at jury trial and sentence).
Defendant's suppression motions were properly denied. This Court, in affirming the conviction of defendant's codefendant, has previously rejected challenges to the joint show up identifications in this case that are similar to the contentions advanced herein ( see, People v. Burnside, 254 A.D.2d 98), and we see no reason to reach a different result. While defendant further challenges the reliability of his in-court identifications by two of the complainants as having been tainted by their having been allegedly advised, following their separate viewing of defendant in a lineup, that they had correctly identified the target of the procedure, this claim has not been preserved for appellate review and, we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this: claim, we would find that the allegedly suggestive post-lineup statements by the detective did not taint the in-court identifications ( see, People v. Nance, 185 A.D.2d 610, lv denied 580 N.Y.2d 976; People v. Council, 162 A.D.2d 293, 294, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 854).
Defendant's claim that portions of his confession should have been suppressed for failure of the police to honor his right to cut off questioning is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest, of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant did not seek to "cut off" questioning, but rather requested to limit its scope, and that the police honored that request.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.