Opinion
July 24, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the hearing court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress testimony regarding the showup identification of the defendant at the police precinct. The People failed to establish the existence of exigent circumstances warranting a showup procedure. Nor did they establish that it would have been unduly burdensome to conduct a lineup procedure in its stead. The record, moreover, supports a finding that the station house identification of the defendant was unduly suggestive. Accordingly, evidence relating thereto should not have been admitted at trial (People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Liano, 142 A.D.2d 602; People v Osgood, 89 A.D.2d 76).
Despite the foregoing, we conclude that reversal of the defendant's conviction is not warranted since the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the complainant had an independent source for her in-court identification of the defendant (see, People v Riley, supra; People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600). Although the hearing court made no finding as to independent source, the record provides an adequate basis for this court to make its own factual determination (see, People v Minota, 137 A.D.2d 837; People v Joy, 114 A.D.2d 517). Specifically, the record reveals that the complainant observed the defendant's face and clothing as he approached her on an otherwise empty street at approximately 8:00 A.M. The defendant pushed the complainant, snatched her purse and ran to a waiting car. The complainant was able to describe the defendant as well as the vehicle and the police were also provided with the license plate number of the vehicle. The defendant was apprehended approximately 30 seconds after the police received a radio transmission relating the details of the incident. Property which had been taken from the complainant during the robbery was ultimately recovered from the floor of the car. We find that the foregoing evidence, coupled with the complainant's unequivocal in-court identification of the defendant, renders the erroneous admission of the showup identification harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Ballott, supra; People v Friday, 114 A.D.2d 970).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.