Opinion
December 8, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Judge presiding at the Wade hearing properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the complainant's identification testimony since the identification was not the product of an unduly suggestive showup procedure. The record shows that approximately one-half hour after the crime the complainant selected the defendant out of some 20 to 30 people present in a hospital emergency room. Although the arresting officer had previously stated to the complainant that the perpetrators may be at the hospital, he did not state where they were within the hospital or otherwise point them out. In any event, merely "informing a witness that he is going to look at a suspect will not, by itself, vitiate an otherwise proper identification" (see, People v. Osgood, 89 A.D.2d 76, 81). Nor does the fact that the police officer told the eyewitness to be "damn sure" of his identification render the identification inadmissible.
We also reject the defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has repeatedly held that were a defendant challenges the complainant's identification by presenting an alibi, the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is for the jury (see, e.g., People v. Campbell, 123 A.D.2d 437; People v Bonaparte, 114 A.D.2d 964; People v. Cox, 114 A.D.2d 968).
Also without merit is the defendant's claim that the trial court should have found that the People failed to timely disclose Brady material. The defendant became aware at the Wade hearing, if not sooner, that an eyewitness to the crime had told the police the make and license plate number of the car in which the culprits made their getaway. Yet, the defendant did not object to the People's failure to disclose this information until after the jury reached a verdict. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err when it denied the defendant's application (see, People v. Murphy, 109 A.D.2d 895; People v Jones, 85 A.D.2d 50; see also, People v. Brown, 67 N.Y.2d 555).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved or have no merit. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.