| People v Richardson |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01103 [70 AD3d 1327] |
| February 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl J.Richardson, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michelle L. Cianciosa of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), renderedOctober 15, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in thesecond degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial ofrobbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]). County Court properly refusedto suppress the showup identification of defendant by several eyewitnesses. The informationprovided by the eyewitnesses and broadcast over the police radio established that two blackmales wearing white T-shirts had just robbed a drug store, and that information also included themake, model, color and approximate year of the vehicle in which they fled the scene. Shortlyafter the robbery, the police observed a stopped vehicle in which three black males, includingdefendant, were seated, and that vehicle matched the description provided by the eyewitnesses.Consequently, the police were justified in initially approaching the stopped vehicle (seePeople v Sanders, 224 AD2d 956 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 885 [1996]; see also People v Young, 68 AD3d1761 [2009]; People v VanEvery, 1 AD3d 977, 978-979 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 602 [2004]). The policealso had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant and the two passengers for the showupidentification approximately 30 to 45 minutes after the robbery had occurred. As noted, thevehicle matched the description of the getaway vehicle and, in addition, it was located near thescene of the robbery and there were two white T-shirts on the seats of the vehicle (see People v Cash J.Y., 60 AD3d1487, 1489 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 913 [2009]). We reject the contention ofdefendant that he was subjected to a de facto arrest at the time of the showup identificationprocedure (see generally People v Smith, 234 AD2d 946 [1996], lv denied 89NY2d 1041 [1997]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the showup identificationprocedure was not unduly suggestive. The People met their initial burden of establishing "thereasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness," and defendantfailed to meet his ultimate burden of establishing that the showup identification procedure wasunduly suggestive (People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498US 833 [1990]). Indeed, we conclude that the procedure was "reasonable under thecircumstances" (People v Brisco, 99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]).[*2]
We have considered defendant's remaining contentionsand conclude that they are without merit. Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Pine andGorski, JJ.