Opinion
June 2, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, F.C.J.).
The identification of appellant near the scene of the crime was spontaneous rather than police arranged, and was admissible (People v. Melette, 176 A.D.2d 480, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 861). Moreover, prompt, on-the-scene identifications by witnesses following a defendant's arrest at or near the crime scene have been generally allowed and never categorically or presumptively condemned (People v. Duvvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544). It bears noting that appellant was identified within minutes of the crime, that he was not handcuffed, that the police officer did not have his gun drawn, and that the circumstances of the showup were not otherwise suggestive (see, People v. Brown, 181 A.D.2d 615).
The inconsistencies in the victim's testimony were minor and did not render the court's factual findings "manifestly erroneous" or "plainly unjustified" as argued by defendant (People v. Vasquez, 166 A.D.2d 194, 195, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 845). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the presentment agency and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), there is no merit to appellant's argument that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim viewed appellant during the robbery for three and one-half minutes in a well-lighted area and made a prompt identification.
Appellant's claim that the evidence presented did not support the order for restrictive placement has been rendered moot by appellant's completion of the period of confinement directed in the dispositional order (Matter of Leonardo Q., 171 A.D.2d 563), and, in any event, is without merit, in view of appellant's arrest subsequent to the hearing, his recurrent truancy problems, and his need for additional supervision (Family Ct Act § 353.5).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.