Opinion
December 12, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied suppression of the showup identification made by the complainant Joseph Mackey at the scene of the crime. This showup occurred in close time and proximity to the event, while the complainant's memory was fresh, and under the circumstances in which it transpired, it was not unduly suggestive (People v Ellis, 126 A.D.2d 663; People v Brnja, 70 A.D.2d 17, affd 50 N.Y.2d 366; People v Lewis, 123 A.D.2d 716, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 830). Moreover, we note that the People established by clear and convincing evidence that there was an independent source for Mackey's in-court identification (Manson v Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98; People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241). The complainant was able to observe the defendant throughout the five-minute robbery under good lighting conditions, and was able to convey a detailed and accurate description to the police officer immediately following the incident (see, People v Gantt, 136 A.D.2d 651, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 896). Bracken, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.