| People v Crumble |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06710 [43 AD3d 953] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Crumble, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot and Alexis Gorton of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.),rendered February 7, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery inthe second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the third degree,and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branchof the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court improperly denied that branch of his omnibusmotion which was to suppress identification testimony. The defendant's contentions that ashowup at which he was identified was unduly suggestive because he was the onlyAfrican-American present at the time that the identification was made, and that police pointedhim out to one of the complainants prior to the identification, as well as his contention that therewere no exigent circumstances warranting a showup identification, are unpreserved for appellatereview (see People v Espala, 223 AD2d 461 [1996]; People v Cruz, 221 AD2d653 [1995]). In any event, the People established at the Wade hearing (see UnitedStates v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]) that the showup identification of the defendant wasproperly conducted within close spatial and temporal proximity to the crimes (see People vDuuvon, 77 NY2d 541 [1991]; People v Safford, 297 AD2d 828 [2002]; People vAttebery, 223 AD2d 714 [1996]; People v Suarez, 201 AD2d 747 [1994]; Peoplev Yearwood, 197 AD2d 554 [1993]; People v Slade, 174 AD2d 639 [1991]).Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the showup was not rendered unduly suggestive [*2]because the complainants knew that the police had a suspect incustody (see People v Gil, 21 AD3d1120 [2005]; People v Sharpe, 259 AD2d 639 [1999]), or because the defendant washandcuffed and in the presence of police officers (see People v McCorkle, 272 AD2d 273[2000]; People v Edey, 248 AD2d 401 [1998]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, whichsaw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal(see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633, 644-45 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, supra). Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ., concur.