Opinion
July 9, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Kepner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that he was deprived of due process and a fair trial by being excluded from the courtroom during a portion of a pretrial suppression hearing. While a criminal defendant has an absolute right to be present during all material stages of the trial (see, People v. Ciaccio, 47 N.Y.2d 431, 436), this right may be forfeited if a defendant's behavior is so disruptive as to impair the orderly and dignified administration of justice (see, CPL 260.20; People v. Palermo, 32 N.Y.2d 222, 225). In the case at bar, the record reveals that during the course of the pretrial hearing, the defendant used obscenities, continually interrupted and denigrated the court, engaged in delaying tactics, and refused to proceed with the hearing. The defendant continued these activities despite being warned by the court that if he continued he would be removed. Thus, it was entirely proper for the court to exclude the defendant.
Nor do we find anything improper with the brief stop, detention and subsequent showup identification of the defendant. Showups occurring in close proximity to the scene of a crime and within a relatively short time after the crime are in accordance with proper police procedures (see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v. Henley, 145 A.D.2d 570; People v. Molina, 140 A.D.2d 377). The defendant was detained within approximately 20 minutes of the alleged burglary and a few blocks away. The witness was immediately brought to the scene and identified the defendant. Thus, the items recovered from the defendant's person after his arrest were properly admitted into evidence (see, People v Brown, 146 A.D.2d 793).
Furthermore, we find that the prosecutor did not improperly bolster the witness's prior identification. Since the witness was unable at trial to make an in-court identification of the defendant based upon present recollection, it was proper for the prosecutor to present two police officers to testify as to the witness's prior identification (see, CPL 60.25; People v Nival, 33 N.Y.2d 391; People v. Hernandez, 154 A.D.2d 197).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and his claim that the sentence was excessive and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.