Opinion
December 2, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly concluded that the showup identification procedure used in this case was not unduly suggestive. Although showup procedures are generally regarded as less than ideal (see, People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 529), where, as here, they are conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime, and for the purpose of assuring that the right person was arrested, they are permissible (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545; see also, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 242; People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023). Upon a consideration of the circumstances involved it is evident that the procedure employed in this case was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, supra, at 543). In any event, we find that the witness's observations of the defendant during the commission of the crime provided a sufficient independent basis for his in-court identification (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 252; People v Ballott, 20 N.Y.2d 600, 606). Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.