Opinion
October 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The hearing court's finding that the showup was not impermissibly suggestive is fully supported by the record (see, People v Jones, 149 A.D.2d 970). Although one-on-one identification procedures are never desirable and should be avoided when feasible, it is well established that procedures which are less than ideal may be tolerable in the interest of prompt identification (People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024; People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 249; People v Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616, 627, lv denied 63 N.Y.2d 776; People v Cole, 100 A.D.2d 442, 445-446). This is particularly so where, as here, the identification was close in time and space to the scene of the crime (People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 529; People v Love, supra; People v Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366, 372; People v Jones, supra; People v Everett, 147 A.D.2d 896). The mere fact that the police may have referred to defendant as a "suspect" or "someone fitting the description" does not, without more, render the showup unnecessarily suggestive (see, People v Rodriquez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740; People v Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 192, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020; People v James, 110 A.D.2d 1037, 1038).