Opinion
November 20, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress testimony regarding his showup identifications. Specifically, the showup occurred in close spatial and temporal proximity to the robbery (see, People v Hilton, 148 A.D.2d 749) while the victims' memories were fresh (see, People v Fabrizis, 145 A.D.2d 504). Both victims spontaneously identified the defendant, without consulting each other (see, People v Wade, 143 A.D.2d 703; People v Hoyer, 141 A.D.2d 973; People v Wiredo, 138 A.D.2d 652). The detective who conducted the showup asked each victim to separately view the defendant. He did not advise the victims that he had apprehended the suspects nor did he encourage them to make an identification. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the showup procedure was not impermissibly suggestive. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.