| People v Annakie |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00706 [47 AD3d 943] |
| January 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v BrianAnnakie, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio, RichardLongworth Hecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Molea, J.), rendered September 26, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the second degree andcriminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the showup at which he was identified by thecomplainant was not unduly suggestive. "Showup procedures are permissible [where, as here,]they are conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for thepurpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification" (People v Gilyard, 32 AD3d 1046, 1046 [2006]). Nor does the factthat the defendant was handcuffed at the time of the identification necessarily render the showupunduly suggestive (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544 [1991]; see also People v Loo, 14 AD3d716 [2005]; People v Pierre, 2AD3d 461 [2003]). Furthermore, the showup was part of an "unbroken chain of events"from the moment the defendant was apprehended until he was identified by the witness(People v Mitchell, 185 AD2d 249, 251 [1992]).
The prosecutor's comments during summation did not improperly shift the burden of proofnor otherwise deprive the defendant of a fair trial.[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peoplev Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Santucci, J.P., Lifson, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.