Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The background of this case is detailed in this Court's decision and order on the appeal of the codefendant Darren Mack (see, People v. Mack, 224 A.D.2d 447 [decided herewith]), with whom the defendant was jointly tried.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing establishes that the showup in this case was proper. The complainants identified the defendant approximately 15 minutes after giving the police a description of the stolen automobile that was used by the defendant to leave the scene of the crime, and the defendant was apprehended several blocks away. The factual circumstances represented one unbroken chain of events — from the commission of the crime to the defendant's escape, the pursuit of the defendant by the police, his apprehension and identification by the complainants — all of which occurred in rapid sequence within a limited geographic area (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-545; People v. Hawkins, 188 A.D.2d 616; People v. Mitchell, 185 A.D.2d 249).
We find that the trial court properly denied, after a hearing, the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that a juror had made inappropriate predeliberation comments (see, People v. Horney, 112 A.D.2d 841). A hearing was held at which 10 jurors and 3 alternate jurors testified. Only two jurors testified that they heard any such comments, and both testified that the comments had no effect on them.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Dien, 77 N.Y.2d 885; People v. Brodie, 170 A.D.2d 519) or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.