Opinion
May 6, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court improperly permitted defense counsel to withdraw his motion to suppress the complaining witness' identification of defendant as one of the robbers. However, the record indicates that two eyewitnesses to the robbery of the complaining witness apprehended the defendant immediately after the robbery, and one of the eyewitnesses brought the complaining witness over to identify the defendant. Since this showup was not a "police-arranged [confrontation] between [the] defendant and [the complainant] * * * for the purpose of establishing the identity of the criminal actor" ( People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552), there was no need for an identification hearing ( see, People v. Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445; see also, People v. Gissendanner, supra; Matter of Leo T., 87 A.D.2d 297).
Moreover, we also note that the showup occurred near the scene of the robbery within minutes after the robbery. "[P]rompt on-the-scene showups are generally held to be proper because, based on fresh recollections of recent events, they insure reliable identifications of perpetrators and the prompt release of innocent suspects" ( People v. Soto, 87 A.D.2d 618, 619; see also, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Brnja, 70 A.D.2d 17, affd 50 N.Y.2d 366; People v. Digiosaffatte, 63 A.D.2d 703). We also note that, contrary to defendant's claim, defendant's guilt was overwhelmingly proven beyond a reasonable doubt inasmuch as, along with the complaining witness, two other eyewitnesses identified defendant as one of the robbers, defendant was apprehended immediately after the crime while fleeing from the scene, and some of the proceeds of the robbery were recovered at the scene.
We have considered defendant's other claims, and we reject them as being either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Titone, O'Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.