Opinion
November 28, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (O'Brien, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction of burglary in the second degree. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We further find that the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence of the identification of the defendant made by the complainant and another witness while the defendant was seated in the rear of a police car in front of the complainant's store. The showup identifications fell within the recognized exception to the general rule against showups as the showups were conducted shortly after the commission of the crime when they were likely to confirm or dispel suspicion as to the suspect (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Session, 143 A.D.2d 233).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including his challenge to the propriety of the sentence, and find them to be without merit. Weinstein, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.