| People v Mobley |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00409 [58 AD3d 756] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Mobley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J.Twersky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.),rendered December 8, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branchof the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly permitted the complainant to testify that immediately after thedefendant and his companions robbed him at gunpoint, the complainant observed the defendantand his companions rob other passengers in the same subway car. Such testimony established thecomplainant's ability to identify the defendant as one of the individuals who robbed him (seePeople v Gines, 36 NY2d 932 [1975]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901];People v Wilson, 225 AD2d 642 [1996]). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant wasobviated by the court's limiting instruction immediately after the complainant's testimonyconcerning the uncharged crimes (see People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 49 [1979];People v Leach, 259 AD2d 633 [1999]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police were justified in temporarily detaining himbased on their reasonable suspicion that he was involved in a robbery that had occurred onlyminutes earlier in close proximity to where he was stopped (see People v De Bour, 40NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; People [*2]v Hill, 41 AD3d 733 [2007]; People v Daniels,304 AD2d 478 [2003]). After the defendant was identified in a showup conducted soon afterhe was stopped, the police had probable cause to arrest him (see CPL 140.10 [1] [b];People v De Bour, 40 NY2d at 223). Accordingly, the hearing court's denial of thatbranch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony shouldnot be disturbed (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).
The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]), and his remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P.,Rivera, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.