| People v Gonzalez |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03012 [61 AD3d 775] |
| April 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SiulGonzalez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky,and Michael J. Balch of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered March 8, 2006, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (J.Goldberg, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressidentification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police properly detained the defendant, who hadsustained injuries, and transported him to a hospital, for the purpose of a showup identificationprocedure, in the interest of securing a prompt and reliable identification. The police hadreasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had stabbed the victim (see People vBlanche, 90 NY2d 821, 822 [1997]; People v Cruz, 31 AD3d 660, 661 [2006]; People v Guiterrez,270 AD2d 184 [2000]; Matter of Jakiyo L., 256 AD2d 466, 467 [1998]; People vSantiago, 251 AD2d 239 [1998]; People v Sledge, 225 AD2d 711, 712 [1996];People v Conyers, 176 AD2d 340 [1991]; People v Beltraz, 165 AD2d 745, 746[1990]; People v Perez, 135 AD2d 665 [1987]).
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress identification testimony, as the showup, which occurred in close temporal and spatialproximity to the crime, approximately one hour after the crime occurred, at a hospital locatedapproximately one mile from the crime scene, was not unduly suggestive (see People vBlanche, 90 [*2]NY2d at 822; People v Ortiz, 90NY2d 533, 537 [1997]; People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]; People v Berry, 50 AD3d 1047,1048 [2008]; People v Crumble, 43AD3d 953 [2007]; People v Fox,11 AD3d 709 [2004]; People vGrant, 17 Misc 3d 673, 676-677 [2007]; cf. People v Colon, 42 AD3d 411 [2007]). In addition, the trialcourt did not err in declining to reopen the Wade hearing (see United States v Wade,388 US 218 [1967]; CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 553, 555[1996]; People v Velez, 39 AD3d38, 42 [2007]).
The trial court properly permitted the People to display the defendant's arrest photograph tothe witnesses for the purpose of an in-court identification, as the defendant had absconded afterjury selection and was tried in absentia (see People v Thompson, 306 AD2d 758, 760[2003]; People v Waithe, 163 AD2d 347 [1990]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982];cf. People v Cooper, 146 AD2d 494 [1989]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Covello andDickerson, JJ., concur.