Opinion
February 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Rena Uviller, J., Daniel FitzGerald, J.
Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. When defendant unexpectedly appeared, and was spontaneously identified, in an apartment where the police and complainant had gone in search of the codefendant, there was no police-arranged confrontation (People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 546), and when the complainant immediately reconfirmed the identification in the hallway outside the apartment, this was a lawful extension of the initial identification (People v. Brown, 203 A.D.2d 158, 159, lv granted 84 N.Y.2d 866; People v. Soto, 198 A.D.2d 38, 39, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 810).
Defendant's argument that physical evidence should have been suppressed as fruit of an unlawful warrantless entry is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit. At the suppression hearing, defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment (People v. Rodriguez, 69 N.Y.2d 159, 163), and may not now rely on trial evidence to challenge the suppression ruling (People v. Giles, 73 N.Y.2d 666).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.