Opinion
January 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.).
Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence was properly denied, inasmuch as the gunpoint seizure of defendant was supported by probable cause. Police officers investigating an area where a rash of robberies had recently occurred, at the same time of day the crimes had been committed, observed defendant, who matched a "profile" of the suspect, for approximately one-half hour entering and exiting the lobbies of three buildings. As defendant was conducting himself in a suspicious manner, in the area the robberies had previously occurred, at the same time of day, and as he matched a reasonably detailed description of the suspect it was more probable than not that defendant was the perpetrator (People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248).
Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Defendant and the five stand-ins shared the same general appearance. At the hearing defendant testified that three of the stand-ins were wearing police uniform pants, but we give no weight to that evidence. Absence of any objection by counsel at the lineup and the testimony by him at the hearing indicates the absence of merit to defendant's challenge to the lineup procedure. Accordingly we decline to disturb the hearing court's determination of the facts. (People v Falciglia, 153 A.D.2d 795, affd 75 N.Y.2d 935.)
We have considered defendants remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.