Opinion
November 8, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Harold Rothwax, J., Edwin Torres, J.
This appeal was held in abeyance to allow further proceedings in the trial court concerning speedy trial motions by defendant and codefendant Melvin Haynes ( 143 A.D.2d 571). At the hearing conducted on November 29, 1989 (Harold Rothwax, J.), counsel for both defendants indicated that upon review of the minutes of all court appearances, they were satisfied that they could not show that their clients' rights to a speedy trial had been violated. Therefore, defendant withdrew his motion.
We find no merit to defendant's remaining claims. His guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. He was arrested at the scene, in possession of a knife, and unlike the robbery victims who had been ordered to undress, was fully clothed. The police testimony that the naked people pointed at defendant was admissible. Caught between the armed robbers and the police, the victims had no time for studied reflection. (People v. Brooks, 71 N.Y.2d 877; People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493.) The prosecutor's summation, viewed in light of the defense contentions, was fair and there was no Rosario violation.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Asch, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.