Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's motion to suppress the showup identification by the victim in a hospital was properly denied. Since the parties were known to each other prior to the incident, the identification was merely confirmatory and the issue of suggestiveness was irrelevant ( see, People v. Tas, 51 N.Y.2d 915; People v. Ballard, 198 A.D.2d 289; People v. Leakes, 177 A.D.2d 714; People v. Woodberry, 176 A.D.2d 770). In any event, the record of the hearing on the codefendant's motion establishes that exigent circumstances existed to justify the hospital showup identification of the defendant ( see, People v. Taylor, 248 A.D.2d 569 [decided herewith]; People v. Rivera, 22 N.Y.2d 453, 455).
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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15). The claimed inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony were minor, did not pertain to the main issues in the case, and did not render him unworthy of belief ( see, People v. Rose, 224 A.D.2d 643; People v. White, 192 A.D.2d 736; People v. Pittman, 186 A.D.2d 282).
Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.