Opinion
October 9, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosenblatt, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the police acted properly when, possessing reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed a robbery, they briefly detained him for 5 to 7 minutes while awaiting the arrival of a police officer who subsequently confirmed that the defendant was the person whom he had seen earlier that evening fleeing from the scene of the crime (see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v. Jefferson, 136 A.D.2d 655, 656; People v. Coe, 133 A.D.2d 165).
The court's finding that the photographic array displayed to the victim of the robbery was not suggestive, is supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing and will not be disturbed on appeal. In any event, the record discloses that the victim had ample opportunity to observe the robbers in a well-lighted location establishing, as the hearing court properly found, that there existed an independent source for the victim's identification of the defendant (see, People v. Green, 160 A.D.2d 724; People v. Irick, 145 A.D.2d 507, 508; People v. Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Brown, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.