Opinion
April 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deeley, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the complainants' identification testimony. It is clear that the police had obtained probable cause to detain the defendant on the instant burglary and robbery charges and to place him in a lineup. Not only did the defendant match the description given of the perpetrator by the complainants, but he also fit the very detailed description given to the police in two anonymous calls providing information about a person committing robberies in the subject area. Under these circumstances, the hearing court properly concluded that the lineup identification was not the product of an illegal arrest (see, People v Hodge, 184 A.D.2d 730; People v O'Brien, 178 A.D.2d 617; People v Paden, 158 A.D.2d 554; People v Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616; People v Johnson, 75 A.D.2d 715).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the fact that the defendant wore a hat covering his hair and a scarf covering the lower part of his nose and mouth, both complainants observed his eyes, eyebrows, and facial features for several minutes under good lighting conditions from distances ranging from one foot to several inches. In addition, the two complainants heard his voice, viewed his body structure, and positively identified him in separate lineups. Given the facts of this case, a rational trier of fact could have found that the People proved the defendant's identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt (cf., People v Coico, 156 A.D.2d 578; People v Liner, 178 A.D.2d 178). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's right to be present during a critical stage of a trial was not violated when, in his absence, the court turned over the previously admitted exhibits to the jury pursuant to their request for "all evidence" (see, People v Murphy, 176 A.D.2d 899; cf., People v Harris, 76 N.Y.2d 810; People v Ciaccio, 47 N.Y.2d 431; People v Mullen, 44 N.Y.2d 1). In addition, we also find that the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748, 750; People v Cuesta, 177 A.D.2d 639).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Wiley, 137 A.D.2d 735; People v Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611; People v Miller, 183 A.D.2d 790). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.