Opinion
December 3, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The complainant identified defendant within two hours after a robbery committed in the early afternoon, after giving the police a detailed description of an armed assailant. The description led to defendant's arrest approximately 45 minutes after the incident. At the showup, defendant stood in the police station dressed in a long tan raincoat, a critical part of complainant's description, in between two police officers. He wore no handcuffs but was the only person without a uniform.
This identification procedure was not so "unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification, that the defendant was denied due process of law" ( People v Brnja, 70 A.D.2d 17, 23, affd 50 N.Y.2d 366). Prompt or instantaneous showup identifications, as here, are productive of the most reliable identifications of culprits and are indicative of good police work ( People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 194, cert den 396 U.S. 1020).
Defendant further contends that he should be relieved of his guilty plea because of the court's failure to expressly advise him of his right to cross-examine witnesses if he were to go to trial. However, by failing to make application to the court of first instance to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, the defendant has not preserved for appellate review the issue of the plea allocution's sufficiency (see People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v. Mattocks, 100 A.D.2d 944; People v. Vicks, 91 A.D.2d 1052). Moreover, the record discloses that the allocution was sufficient ( People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9; People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, cert den sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067). We have examined defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Titone, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur.