| People v Dabreo |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05472 [108 AD3d 731] |
| July 24, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Keiron Dabreo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, CamilleO'Hara Gillespie, Rebecca Weber, and Eugene A. Sokoloff of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Dowling, J.), rendered April 26, 2011, convicting him of attempted robbery in thesecond degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Jacobson, J.), ofthat branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identificationtestimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the identification procedure during which twofriends of the victim identified the defendant was not unduly suggestive (see People vClark, 85 NY2d 886, 888 [1995]; People v Walker, 285 AD2d 481 [2001];People v Burgos, 246 AD2d 394 [1998]; People v Spruill, 232 AD2d278, 279 [1996]). The suppression hearing transcript reflects that mere minutes after thecrime occurred and within three blocks of the crime scene, the two friends spontaneouslyidentified the defendant while canvassing the area with police officers. Moreover,according to the uncontradicted testimony of an officer who participated in the canvass,the two friends chose the direction of the canvass.
Similarly without merit is the defendant's contention that a showup procedureinvolving a third friend of the victim was unduly suggestive. Through the hearingtestimony of two police officers, the People provided a detailed account of thecircumstances of the showup and presented evidence that the showup was conducted inclose spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime (see People vOrtiz, 90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997]; People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544-545[1991]; People v Traylor,69 AD3d 659, 660 [2010]; People v Stevens, 43 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2007]). Thus, theburden shifted to the defendant to establish that the identification procedure was undulysuggestive (see People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d at 537). The defendant did not meet hisburden (see People vCrumble, 43 AD3d 953, 953 [2007]; People v Gil, 21 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2005]; People v Rubi, 19 AD3d139, 140 [2005]; People vWilliams, 15 AD3d 244, 246 [2005]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Eng, P.J., Balkin, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.