Opinion
August 10, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On December 13, 1988, at approximately 6:00 P.M., Police Officer Nicastro and his partner, Police Officer Maffei, were in uniform on patrol in a marked police vehicle in Yonkers. When they arrived at the vicinity of South Broadway and Highland Avenue they were flagged down by the complainant. The complainant told them that he was robbed at knifepoint on Elliot Avenue by two men. He also stated that the assailants were walking northbound on South Broadway. He then got into the police car and they searched for his assailants. About 45 seconds later, and a few blocks away, the complainant pointed out to the officers two men whom he identified as having robbed him. The officers then pulled up in front of the defendant and the codefendant and placed them under arrest.
The defendant contends that a Wade hearing should have been held in response to the branch of his motion which was to suppress identification testimony. We disagree. That branch of the defendant's motion was properly denied because the identification was made spontaneously and was not the product of an identification procedure arranged by the police (see, People v. McCarter, 179 A.D.2d 780; People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397; People v. Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445).
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in rendering a Sandoval ruling by which the prosecutor would be permitted to cross-examine the defendant as to his previous felony conviction without inquiry into the underlying circumstances (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v Blue, 178 A.D.2d 539; People v. Cruz, 176 A.D.2d 751; People v Harvey, 174 A.D.2d 754; People v. Edwards, 159 A.D.2d 583).
Moreover, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that CPL 250.20 is unconstitutional (see, People v. Gill, 164 A.D.2d 867; People v. Peterson, 96 A.D.2d 871).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Lawrence, JJ., concur.