Opinion
2012-12-12
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Chris PRICE, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jessica M. McNamara of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Matthew Sweet of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jessica M. McNamara of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Matthew Sweet of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County*890(Hollie, J.), rendered January 13, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's present challenge to the showup identification procedure as unduly suggestive was preserved by the issues raised at the pretrial suppression hearing ( see People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533, 537, 664 N.Y.S.2d 243, 686 N.E.2d 1337;People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608,cert. denied498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70;People v. Berry, 50 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 856 N.Y.S.2d 228). However, the defendant's contention that the showup identification procedure was unduly suggestive is without merit ( see People v. Lopez, 93 A.D.3d 808, 809, 940 N.Y.S.2d 313;People v. Mais, 71 A.D.3d 1163, 1165, 897 N.Y.S.2d 716;People v. Parris, 70 A.D.3d 725, 726, 893 N.Y.S.2d 287;People v. Berry, 50 A.D.3d at 1048, 856 N.Y.S.2d 228;People v. Guy, 47 A.D.3d 643, 643, 850 N.Y.S.2d 476;People v. Samuels, 39 A.D.3d 569, 570, 833 N.Y.S.2d 575;People v. Leon, 265 A.D.2d 344, 345, 696 N.Y.S.2d 221).