Opinion
August 11, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Cotter, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court was correct in refusing to suppress the identification of the defendant since the showup conducted was part of one rapidly unfolding sequence of events, was spatially and temporally proximate to the crime, and was not unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Padilla, 219 A.D.2d 688; People v Doherty, 198 A.D.2d 296; People v. Grassia, 195 A.D.2d 607; People v. Rowlett, 193 A.D.2d 768; People v. Mitchell, 185 A.D.2d 249). Therefore, the employment of a showup procedure under these circumstances was proper ( see, e.g., People v. Sturgis, 199 A.D.2d 549; People v. Byrd, 163 A.D.2d 407).
Further, 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 that, in the course of forcibly stealing property, the defendant caused the complainant physical injury ( see, Penal Law § 10.00; § 160.10 [2] [a]; People v. Greene, 70 N.Y.2d 860; People v. Saboze, 237 A.D.2d 387; People v. Rivera, 183 A.D.2d 792; People v. Daniels, 159 A.D.2d 631; People v. Brooks, 155 A.D.2d 680). 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 defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.