Opinion
December 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Seewald, J.).
As the showups, which were prompted by the eyewitness's bringing defendant to the officers' attention, were proximate in time and location to the crime, the hearing court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544). The validity of such at-the-scene procedures is not necessarily diminished by the existence of a prior identification (supra, at 545). Further, the record contains a sufficient independent basis for the in-court identification of defendant by the victim to render harmless any suggestiveness surrounding the victim's station-house view of defendant (People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 252; cf., People v Seegars, 172 A.D.2d 183, 187, appeal dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1069). We do not find that the court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.