Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred by denying suppression of the showup identifications that were made by two witnesses near the scene of the crime. While simultaneous showup procedures are generally disfavored (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241), they are permissible when, as in this case, they are employed in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Burns, 133 A.D.2d 642). Moreover, the trial court properly precluded the defendant from cross-examining two police officers as to his alleged exculpatory statement made after his arrest when the People did not offer the defendant's statement into evidence (see, People v Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725; People v Oliphant, 201 A.D.2d 590). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.