Opinion
June 29, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.).
Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied. Contrary to defendant's contention, the People clearly established the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in the prompt on-the-scene showup procedure ( People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533; People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). The circumstances of the identification were sufficiently established through the testimony of a sergeant who stated that in addition to receiving assistance from bilingual individuals in communicating with the victims, he relied on the victims' nonverbal communications as well, which clearly identified defendant as one of the individuals who had robbed them. The showup was not rendered unduly suggestive by the fact that it was conducted before a group of victims, while defendant was in handcuffs and accompanied by uniformed officers ( People v. Duuvon, supra; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023). The record establishes that each witness made a spontaneous identification. In light of the foregoing, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request to have the complainants testify at the hearing ( People v. Chipp, supra).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.