Opinion
March 1, 1985
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Hyman Maas, J.
Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and O'Donnell, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant asserts that the court erred in failing to suppress evidence of a "one-on-one" showup conducted at the scene of the crime. Although such procedure is not ideal, it is tolerated in the interest of prompt identification, especially when it is proximate in time and place to the scene of the crime ( People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024; People v. Cole, 100 A.D.2d 442, 445-446). Here the witness gave a detailed description of the perpetrator at the scene and identified defendant 20 to 25 minutes after he was apprehended. The fact that the defendant stood between two police officers was not inherently suggestive ( see, People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366, 372; People v. Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616, 627). Although the court erred in admitting bolstering testimony relating to the witness' prior identification ( People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471), strong identification evidence offered by the prosecution rendered the error harmless ( see, People v. Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584, 585; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).