| People v Robinson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03466 [95 AD3d 906] |
| May 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EarlRobinson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky,and Maria Park of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.),rendered November 25, 2008, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, attempted robbery inthe first degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Theappeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing of those branches of the defendant'somnibus motion which were to suppress identification evidence and his statements to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches ofhis omnibus motion which were to suppress identification evidence and his statements to lawenforcement officials. The evidence at the suppression hearing warranted the Supreme Court'sinference that the police officers who initiated the pursuit of the defendant had reasonablesuspicion to detain him based on the information that they had received minutes earlier from aradio transmission and the defendant's location in a residential back yard several yards away fromthe crime scene (see People v Gonzalez, 91 NY2d 909, 910 [1998]; People v Coleman, 62 AD3d 810,810-811 [2009]; People v Sabeno, 223 AD2d 512, 512-513 [1996]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court also properly denied that branchof his omnibus motion which was to suppress three showup identifications. Although showupsare inherently suggestive and thus generally disfavored (see People v Johnson, 81 NY2d828, 831 [1993]; People v Riley, 70 NY2d 523, 529 [1987]), showups have been upheldwhere, as here, they are conducted in reasonably close temporal and physical proximity to thecrime scene (see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544 [1991]). In this instance, theshowup identifications occurred at the residence where the crimes took place within minutes oftheir occurrence and were not unduly suggestive under the circumstances (id. at 544).
The defendant's remaining contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief regarding theprosecutor's summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Stewart, [*2]89 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2011]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584 [2011]). In any event, thosecontentions, as well as his remaining contentions, either are without merit or do not warrantreversal. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.