Opinion
November 7, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Once the complaining witness picked the defendant out from among the passengers on a bus, the identification was complete (see, People v. James, 138 A.D.2d 744). Any subsequent station house viewing of the defendant by the complaining witness, and it is unclear from the record that such a viewing occurred although both sides on this appeal assume that it did, was not arranged by the police for the purpose of establishing the identity of the criminal actor. The rule mandating the exclusion of identification testimony based on an unduly suggestive showup is therefore inapplicable to the facts herein (see, People v Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020, rearg dismissed 27 N.Y.2d 733, 737; People v. Simpkins, 135 A.D.2d 756, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 902; People v. Brown, 126 A.D.2d 657, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 703).
The defendant's sentence was fair and appropriate under the circumstances (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either not preserved for our review or do not require reversal. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.