| People v Traylor |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00185 [69 AD3d 659] |
| January 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jamine Traylor, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.),rendered September 28, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Gary, J.), ofthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence presented by the People was legally insufficientto prove that he was one of two men who robbed the complainant is not preserved for appellatereview inasmuch as the defendant did not specify that ground in his general motion for a trialorder of dismissal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Eugene, 27 AD3d 480[2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the contention raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, theshowup at which he was identified by the complainant was not unduly suggestive (see People v Annakie, 47 AD3d943, 944 [2008]; People vGilyard, 32 AD3d 1046 [2006]). The showup was conducted in close spatial andtemporal proximity to the commission of the crime, and the factual circumstances presented atthe pretrial hearing represented an "unbroken chain of events" from the moment the defendantwas apprehended until he was identified by the complainant (People v Mitchell, 185AD2d 249, 251 [1992]; see People v Annakie, 47 AD3d at 944; People vGilyard, 32 AD3d at 1046). Since the defendant failed to meet his burden of [*2]establishing that the showup was unduly suggestive (see People v Berry, 50 AD3d1047, 1048 [2008]), it was not necessary for the People to establish that the complainant hada source for his in-court identification of the defendant independent of the showup (see People v Coad, 60 AD3d 963,964 [2009]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Belen andAustin, JJ., concur.