Opinion
March 16, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J.).
Defendant's suppression motions were properly denied in their entirety. The police observed defendant, who fit the description of one of the perpetrators of a robbery, pulling what appeared to be a gun from his waistband and fleeing upon making eye contact with an officer, and were thus provided with probable cause for defendant's arrest ( People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 223). In such circumstances, a showup procedure was appropriate ( People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541). There is no evidence that the showup, as conducted, was unduly suggestive. The circumstances that defendant was handcuffed behind his back and in the presence of police officers, and that the complainant was told that he would be viewing a suspect, did not render the procedure unduly suggestive ( People v. Duuvon, supra).
The court's appropriately balanced Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Couvertier, 222 A.D.2d 239, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 971).
The record supports the court's determination, made following extended inquiry, that defendant's application for substitution of assigned counsel was without good cause and was simply a ploy to delay the trial. The record further establishes that defendant received effective assistance, of counsel ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Lerner, JJ.