Opinion
October 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).
Defendant's motion to suppress identification evidence was properly denied. Defendant's claims regarding undue suggestiveness in the conduct of the showup identification have not been preserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Espala, 223 A.D.2d 461, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 847), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that, given the temporal and spatial proximity of the showup to the crime scene, the showup identification procedure, at which defendant was not handcuffed, did not create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be misidentified ( see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Espala, supra). Although the item stolen was in the area near where defendant was identified by its owner, it was not in his possession or in the possession of any of the officers, nor did the police make any suggestive use of the item to influence the complainant's identification ( see, People v. Mesa, 247 A.D.2d 347, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 975).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.