Opinion
June 13, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Martinez-Perez, J.).
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly concluded that the identification procedure used in this case was not unduly suggestive. While showups are generally disfavored, they are permissible when, as here, they are employed in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Jackson, 180 A.D.2d 756; People v. Holder, 178 A.D.2d 436). The facts that the appellant was handcuffed and in the company of the police does not render the showup constitutionally infirm (see, People v Grassia, 195 A.D.2d 607; People v. Whitney, 158 A.D.2d 734; People v. Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.