Opinion
February 2, 1993
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.).
There is no merit to appellant's claim that the complainant's identification testimony was insufficient to support the court's finding of guilt, since the complainant had ample opportunity to observe appellant when he turned around and stood face to face with appellant at a distance of three to five feet (cf., People v Liner, 178 A.D.2d 178, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 949; People v Shannon, 182 A.D.2d 567, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 934). At most, the complainant's identification raised an issue of credibility to be determined by the trier of fact (see, People v Michael P., 169 A.D.2d 738, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 909). Nor is there merit to appellant's contention that the court should have drawn an adverse inference against the presentment agency for having failed to call the employees of the store from which the complainant had exited just prior to the robbery and the driver of the parked car that was then waiting for the complainant, there being no evidence that these persons had actually observed any relevant events, or that they were under the control of the presentment agency (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424). Finally, in view of appellant's previous behavior, the court's placement of him in a structured and secure facility is consistent with both his best interest and the need to protect the community.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.