Opinion
May 21, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.).
The complainant was accosted and robbed by four men at a bus stop on Third Avenue between 39th and 40th Streets in Manhattan on September 3, 1988 at approximately 3:00 A.M. Immediately after the incident, the complainant located a marked patrol car and was driven through the area in search of the perpetrators. He recognized the four men, including the defendant, as the patrol car approached Second Avenue from the west on 42nd Street. The suspects were stopped, frisked and identified.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury's resolution of issues regarding credibility (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), it is clear that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The victim's identification testimony alone was sufficient to support the conviction (People v Arroyo, 54 N.Y.2d 567, 578, cert denied 456 U.S. 979). The fact that the victim's description of the defendant did not refer to defendant's mutilated ear does not make his identification unreliable as a matter of law. (People v Mosley, 112 A.D.2d 812, affd 67 N.Y.2d 985.) Likewise, the failure to recover the proceeds of the crime does not render the victim's identification testimony incredible (People v Williams, 155 A.D.2d 394, 395, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 819).
The circumstances of the street showup did not render the identification procedure unduly suggestive. Showup identifications, although inherently suggestive, are permissible when held in close temporal and special proximity to that of the crime (People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the officers were justified in frisking the defendant and his companions; no particularized independent source for their belief of danger was required. (See, People v Paige, 154 A.D.2d 318, 319, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 816.)
The court's Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about five of defendant's eleven prior criminal convictions (three convictions for theft of services, one conviction for attempted petit larceny, and one conviction for attempted robbery) without inquiry into the facts underlying these convictions, was not an abuse of discretion. (Compare, People v Brown, 161 A.D.2d 458, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 938. )
The remaining issues raised by the defendant have been considered and found to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.