Opinion
November 26, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court erred in failing to suppress identification testimony which was the product of a station house showup. The complainant, who was robbed in his apartment by three men, viewed the defendant together with two alleged accomplices in a room at the station house. The complainant identified the accomplices but did not identify the defendant either at the showup or at the trial. The defendant nevertheless contends that he was unduly prejudiced by the court's failure to suppress identification testimony involving the accomplices. We find this argument to be without merit. Furthermore, we note that the accomplices, who pleaded guilty prior to the defendant's trial, testified on his behalf and admitted their complicity in the robbery.
During the same station house showup, the complainant's nephew identified the defendant. The court properly denied suppression of the nephew's identification testimony. The nephew knew the defendant prior to the crimes. Therefore, the showup was in the nature of a confirmation and the issue of suggestive police procedure was not relevant (see, People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Stewart, 144 A.D.2d 601).
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 establish the defendant's guilt. 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). The testimony of the defendant's alibi witnesses and the two accomplices presented issues of credibility for the jury, and its determination should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86).
The defendant's contention with respect to the court's charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05).
Finally, we find that the defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.