Opinion
May 17, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony. The defendant matched the general description transmitted over the police radio and was apprehended within 20 minutes and a few blocks from the scene of the crime. The police acted properly in briefly detaining the defendant while awaiting the arrival of a witness (see, People v Hinds, 166 A.D.2d 542). Once identified by the witness, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the subsequent police action in transporting him back to the crime scene for a showup identification was not gratuitous in light of the prior identification, and allowing the witnesses to view the defendant while he was handcuffed and seated in the rear of a police car did not render the showup unduly suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit (see, Delaware v Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15; People v Green, 56 N.Y.2d 427; People v Stanard, 42 N.Y.2d 74, cert denied 434 U.S. 986; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80) or unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to review the latter in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.