Opinion
November 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the showup identifications were not so unnecessarily suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241). We note that the identification which was made by a witness who was very near the crime scene was conducted within minutes of both the commission of the crime and the witness's initial sighting of the defendant. Under these circumstances, "[a] speedy-on-the-scene viewing thus was of value * * * to law enforcement authorities * * * and was [thus] appropriate" (People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234, 242). In addition, where the showup identification takes place within a short time after the crime and very near the crime scene, "[t]he fact that defendant was handcuffed in the patrol car alone does not transform the viewing into an unduly suggestive one" (People v Duuvon, 160 A.D.2d 653, affd 77 N.Y.2d 541, supra). Similarly, the identification made by the complainant was conducted in temporal proximity to the commission of the crime and was otherwise properly conducted.
The defendant's contentions regarding his plea are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant neither moved to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing nor raised the contentions by way of a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662; People v Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858; People v Aloisi, 177 A.D.2d 491). In any event, the plea allocution sufficiently established the elements of the crime (see, People v Lopez, supra; People v Chessman, 75 A.D.2d 187). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.