Opinion
February 8, 1999
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Pano Z. Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the suppression court properly concluded that the hospital room showup was not unduly suggestive or otherwise improper ( see, e.g., People v. Blanche, 90 N.Y.2d 821, 822; People v. Taylor, 248 A.D.2d 569; People v. Rementeria, 243 A.D.2d 736; People v. Conyers, 176 A.D.2d 340; People v. Thomas, 175 A.D.2d 188). Showup procedures which are close in time and location to the scene are permissible in the interest of prompt identification ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 210 A.D.2d 168, 169; People v. Drake, 141 A.D.2d 560, 561).
Resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86). 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 sentencing court did not err by imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment for the defendant's convictions for gang assault in the first and second degrees ( see, People v. Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839). Although the convictions arose out of a single transaction, the gang assault on each of the victims constituted separate and distinct acts which justified the imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment as to those crimes ( see, People v. Williams, 245 A.D.2d 400, 401; People v. Reyes, 239 A.D.2d 524, 525; People v. Glass, 179 A.D.2d 774, 775). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.