Opinion
December 22, 1995
Appeal from the Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In support of defendant's motion to renew the suppression motion, defense counsel asserted that newly discovered evidence warranted reopening the hearing for a determination of whether a Payton violation had occurred. County Court properly denied that motion. "Because defendant had knowledge of the facts surrounding his arrest, those facts may not be considered `additional pertinent facts * * * discovered by the defendant which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion' (CPL 710.40)" (People v Mitchell-Benetiz, 168 A.D.2d 994, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 909).
The showup conducted at the crime scene was not rendered unduly suggestive by the fact that defendant was viewed in the company of police officers (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v Doherty, 198 A.D.2d 296, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 804) or that the witness was advised that the police had a suspect in custody who matched the description he provided (see, People v Duuvon, supra; People v Tarrat, 161 A.D.2d 613).
The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant with respect to the facts underlying certain prior convictions (see, People v Teen, 200 A.D.2d 785, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 859; People v Norde, 186 A.D.2d 456, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 974) or in allowing evidence rebutting the testimony of defendant's wife (see, People v Booker, 134 A.D.2d 949, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 953).
Defendant was provided sufficient opportunity to challenge his prior convictions at the persistent felony offender hearing (see, CPL 400.20; People v Maphis, 193 A.D.2d 829; People v Yung, 162 A.D.2d 874, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 992).
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621) is sufficient to support the conviction.