Opinion
October 10, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly determined that the events leading up to the identification of the defendant were not police arranged. The evidence, as credited by the hearing court, established that the defendant was being detained by several passersby when a police officer arrived on the scene. While the officer was attempting to ascertain what had occurred, an eyewitness stepped forward and identified the defendant as one of the robbers. Moments thereafter, the complaining witness arrived and identified the defendant as one of his assailants. The defendant was then handcuffed and placed under arrest. Inasmuch as the viewings of the defendant were not arranged by the authorities and the identifications were neither directly nor indirectly prompted or solicited by the police, they were not subject to suppression (see, e.g., People v Diaz, 146 A.D.2d 797; People v Johnson, 145 A.D.2d 573; People v Jones, 143 A.D.2d 683; People v Decker, 134 A.D.2d 511; People v Sivels, 134 A.D.2d 381).
Even if it may be said that the identifications were the proper subject of a Wade hearing, suppression would be inappropriate because the viewings were not unduly suggestive and were made in close proximity to the crime scene only minutes after the commission of the offense (see generally, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Knight, 144 A.D.2d 698; People v Prato, 143 A.D.2d 205; People v Molina, 140 A.D.2d 377). Accordingly, suppression was properly denied. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.