Opinion
October 3, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the complainant's unprompted identification — which occurred within an hour of the robbery (see, People v Digiosaffatte, 63 A.D.2d 703) and after the defendant was observed on the street entering an automobile associated with the crime — cannot be characterized as the product of an unduly suggestive procedure (cf., People v Kennedy, 128 A.D.2d 549, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1005).
The record reveals that shortly after the robbery, the police promptly transported the complainant to an address which was obtained during a check of the license plate of the car in which the defendant fled. Upon arriving at this address, the police observed three men enter the getaway car, which had been previously identified as such by the complainant. After the police briefly detained the men, the complainant spontaneously identified the defendant and a second man as perpetrators of the crime.
In light of the foregoing, the hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress. Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.