Opinion
October 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Approximately one month after having his apartment burglarized, the complainant saw the defendant in front of his building, told his cousin that this was the burglar, and then telephoned 911, while his cousin followed the defendant. Shortly after, the defendant was detained by police officers and the complainant identified him while the defendant stood on the street, neither handcuffed nor restrained by the police officers who stood near him.
The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in not suppressing the showup identification, which took place one month after the crime and was conducted in an unduly suggestive manner. We disagree. Since the complainant had spontaneously recognized the defendant shortly before as the robber, the showup was merely confirmatory (see, People v. Martindale, 202 A.D.2d 158; People v Cascoigne, 189 A.D.2d 714). Furthermore, not only was the showup preceded by an independent identification made under non-suggestive circumstances, but there was evidence that the complainant knew the defendant from having seen him in and in front of his building before the burglary (see, People v Cascoigne, supra).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.