Opinion
October 7, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that the showup conducted by police was impermissibly suggestive. The showup occurred within 20 to 25 minutes of the robbery following defendant's apprehension within 150 to 200 yards of the crime scene. Where, as here, the showup is made in proximity to the time and place where the crime occurred, it is an acceptable means of securing a suspect's identification (see, People v Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366, 372; People v Jordan, 178 A.D.2d 1009, 1010, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 920; People v Everett, 147 A.D.2d 896, 897). In such circumstances, a showup is tolerable in the interest of prompt identification (People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024). The hearing court's finding that the showup was not suggestive is supported by the record (People v Plantz, 161 A.D.2d 1115, 1116, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 863; People v Jones, 149 A.D.2d 970, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 742; People v Shippens, 136 A.D.2d 944, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1033).