Opinion
March 25, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Ivan Warner, J., John Stackhouse, J.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, we find that the jury's verdict was amply supported by the evidence, including the positive identification of defendant by one of the complainants within minutes of the crime, and the recovery of another complainant's jewelry from defendant's person upon his arrest. Defendant's argument that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence raises only issues of credibility concerning the identification that were properly left to the jury (see, People v. Loveano, 176 A.D.2d 584, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 949).
The police had just received a radio transmission of a robbery in progress briefly describing the assailants. Defendant and his cohort were running in the street two blocks away from the reported crime scene and looking behind them as they ran, although no one appeared to be chasing them. These circumstances provided the police with reasonable suspicion that defendant and his cohort might have committed the crime (People v. Lugo, 179 A.D.2d 565, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 949), and justified the minimal intrusion in asking them to stop (People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444; see also, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234).
Nor was the show-up identification of defendant by one of the victims unduly suggestive. Indeed, the two men were captured in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene and viewed by the witness within moments (see, People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523). The record also supports the hearing court's finding that the witness's observation of defendant during the crime provided her with an independent source for the identification (see, People v Hill, 161 A.D.2d 478, 479).
Finally, there is no basis to reduce defendant's sentence.
We have considered all other claims and find them to be of no merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.