Opinion
February 9, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J., at suppression hearing; Jerome Hornblass, J., at jury trial and sentence).
Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. The reliability of the identification was ensured by the showup's close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime, and the challenged features of the showup were the result of an unbroken chain of exigent events ( see, People v. Davis, 232 A.D.2d 154, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 941). The identification was not rendered unduly suggestive by the circumstances that, as the witness arrived by police car at the location of the showup, he observed defendant holding a bicycle (an item featured in defendant's description) while defendant was in the presence of numerous police officers ( see, People v. Green, 256 A.D.2d 85; People v. Aponte, 222 A.D.2d 304, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 980), or that the witness was told that he was going to view a possible suspect ( see, People v. Adams, 231 A.D.2d 447, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 862; People v. Stafford, 215 A.D.2d 212, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 784).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.