Opinion
December 5, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Judith Scheindlin, J.).
The showup identification was not unduly suggestive where it occurred near the scene of and approximately 45 minutes after the crime ( People v Serrano, 219 A.D.2d 508), and despite the fact that respondent was in custody ( People v Lawhorn, 199 A.D.2d 123, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 855).
The evidence was sufficient to establish that respondent was a participant in a group of 10 to 12 youths who surrounded the complainant, and, upon a signal, tripped him several times, threatened him with a glass bottle, swung a knapsack at him in a threatening way, and brandished a stick the size of a baseball bat, forcing him to turn over his watch. The evidence refutes respondent's claim that the taking of the watch was merely the product of an altercation between the complainant and one particular youth other than respondent. Furthermore, although the complainant could not specify respondent's role in the crime, he did testify that respondent was part of a group, each of whose members was an active participant.
Concur — Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
Murphy, P.J., concurs in the result only.