Opinion
July 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J., at suppression hearing; Dorothy Cropper, J., at jury trial).
Once defendant, who sufficiently matched the general description broadcast over the police radio, was found hiding under a car near the scene of the reported robbery, the police officers had reasonable cause to detain him for a possible identification by other officers to whom defendant had been identified by a complainant, and who had themselves seen defendant discard a gun ( People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234). Upon the officers' identification of him as the perpetrator, there was probable cause to arrest defendant ( supra).
The complainant's showup identification of defendant at the location where he was being detained, after having twice identified him from inside a patrol car, was merely confirmatory and was not suggestive ( People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v Martindale, 202 A.D.2d 158, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 912; People v Cascoigne, 189 A.D.2d 714, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1012). Moreover, the court properly determined, after a hearing, that the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was an independent source for any in-court identification of defendant by the other complainant whose precinct identification had been suppressed ( see, People v. Williams, 222 A.D.2d 149, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 1072).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.