Opinion
December 21, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Any error regarding the People's failure to give proper notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 and the court's failure to preclude a witness's identification testimony was harmless in light of other overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Bradshaw, 232 A.D.2d 499; People v. Bradshaw, 223 A.D.2d 651; People v. Reed, 154 A.D.2d 629). The evidence included the identification testimony of the detective who observed the defendant in the commission of the offense, the identification testimony of the complainant, and the recovery of stolen property from the defendant's person minutes after the commission of the offense.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the showup identification made by the complainant at the crime scene only minutes after the commission of the crime was not improper ( see, People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v. Lloyd, 236 A.D.2d 631). The manner in which the showup was conducted was not unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Lloyd, supra, at 632, citing People v. Moore, 145 A.D.2d 510).
Further, we reject the defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and that the physical evidence seized should have been suppressed. The descriptions given to police officers involved in the pursuit and arrest of the defendant, along with his spacial and temporal proximity to the crime, his appearance which matched the descriptions, and his conduct upon being approached by the police, constituted sufficient facts to justify the police conduct ( see, People v. Smith, 222 A.D.2d 463; People v. Alford, 198 A.D.2d 364).
Miller, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.