Opinion
November 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention concerning the reliability of the hearing court's findings is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Sumpter, 192 A.D.2d 628). Where, as here, the defendant fails to move to reopen the hearing, trial testimony cannot be used to challenge the suppression ruling (see, People v Diaz, 194 A.D.2d 688, 689). In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit, insofar as the arresting officer's testimony at the Wade hearing did not raise a substantial issue as to the constitutionality of the identification procedure (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 337, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Harvall, 196 A.D.2d 553).
Nor has the defendant preserved his contention that the court erred in precluding him from testifying about two unrelated lineups in which he had not been identified by witnesses (see, CPL 470.05; People v Black, 138 A.D.2d 498, 499). In any event, this contention is without merit, since the defendant failed to make a clear and unambiguous offer of proof demonstrating the relevance of the defendant's proposed testimony regarding the two other lineups (see, People v Billups, 132 A.D.2d 612, 613). "`While due process requires that a defendant in a criminal case be permitted to call witnesses in his [or her] own behalf and to introduce evidence that a person other than he [or she] committed the crime charged (see, Chambers v Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284), "such evidence must do more than raise a mere suspicion that another person committed the crime; there must be a clear link between the third party and the crime in question"'" (People v Santano, 187 A.D.2d 618, quoting People v Zanfordino, 157 A.D.2d 682, 683).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). While the People's case depended on the eyewitness identification made by the complainant, the testimony of a single eyewitness can be sufficient to support a judgment of conviction (see, People v Arroyo, 54 N.Y.2d 567, 578, cert denied 456 U.S. 979; People v Livingston, 184 A.D.2d 529, 530; People v Azzara, 138 A.D.2d 495). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.