Opinion
October 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).
Evidence of prompt showup identifications involving three eyewitnesses, conducted 40 minutes after the armed robbery, at the crime scene, was admissible as the procedures employed were not suggestive under the circumstances (see, People v. Aponte, 194 A.D.2d 315; People v. Slade, 174 A.D.2d 639, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 974). The showup identification by the complainant, who had sustained a gun wound to his head, conducted at the hospital a short while later, was also appropriate under the circumstances (People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523).
Defense counsel's failure to object to the People's lack of timely and full notice under CPL 710.30 concerning the first three showups, resulted in the waiver of this claim as a matter of law (People v. Dobbs, 194 A.D.2d 996, 997). Defendant's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because of counsel's failure to seek to suppress these identifications is without merit in view of counsel's challenge to the propriety of all four showup identifications pursuant to a motion to suppress (see, CPL 710.30; People v. Rivera, 73 A.D.2d 528, 529, affd 53 N.Y.2d 1005).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the People established defendant's guilt of first degree robbery beyond a reasonable doubt as the evidence established that defendant, while armed with a loaded pistol, forcibly removed a wallet from the complainant and thus exercised dominion and control over the property for a period of time, however temporary, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the owner's continued rights (see, People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 118).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.