Opinion
May 13, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the 14-month delay between the date of the crime and the commencement of criminal proceedings deprived him of due process (see, People v Montez, 167 A.D.2d 356). The record establishes that probable cause to arrest the defendant did not exist until approximately 14 months after the crime. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the police deliberately delayed in arresting the defendant in order to obtain a tactical advantage (see, People v Montez, supra; People v Bryant, 65 A.D.2d 333), nor is there any concrete showing that the defendant was precluded from presenting a viable defense at trial as a result of the delay (see, People v Montez, supra; People v Bonsauger, 91 A.D.2d 1001).
We disagree with the defendant's contention that the court improperly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. A review of the evidence adduced at the Wade hearing reveals that the photographic identification procedures employed by the police were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Blake, 170 A.D.2d 613; People v Bullard, 146 A.D.2d 582). In any event, the hearing court's determination that each of the complaining witnesses had an independent basis for in-court identification of the defendant is amply supported by the record (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 252; People v Armstead, 98 A.D.2d 726).
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The case against the defendant included, among other things, the logical and consistent testimony of the two eyewitness-complainants and one of the defendant's accomplices. Accordingly, 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).
Finally, we find the sentences imposed upon the defendant to be neither unduly harsh nor excessive under the circumstances of this case (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.