Opinion
May 16, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, the police officers were justified in detaining the defendant until the witness to the crime could arrive for the purpose of making an identification (see, People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v. Bedoya, 190 A.D.2d 812; People v. McLaughlin, 132 A.D.2d 712). When the witness failed to identify the defendant or his companion as the assailant, they were both released.
The hearing court found that when detectives stopped the defendant early the following morning, the defendant agreed to accompany them back to the station house. The court's determination in this regard is supported by the record, and we find no basis for disturbing it (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Boone, 183 A.D.2d 721). The hearing court, therefore, properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress his statements to the detectives at the station house (see, People v. Rogers, 52 N.Y.2d 527; People v. Dyla, 142 A.D.2d 423).
The sentence that was imposed does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of constitutional limitations (see, N.Y. Const, art I, § 5; US Const 8th Amend; People v Adams, 194 A.D.2d 680; People v. Boatwright, 159 A.D.2d 510), nor is it unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.