| People v Peterson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07066 [110 AD3d 1103] |
| October 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shawn Peterson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz andBarbara Kornblau of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Grella, J.), rendered March 30, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the third degree (twocounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing (McCormack, J.) pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions, of thesuppression of identification testimony and physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police officers who responded to reportsof two robberies acted lawfully in stopping him and his two accomplices. The generalsimilarity of the physical characteristics of the defendant and his companions to thedescriptions of the offenders that were broadcast in two police radio calls, theobservation of the men in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crimes, and theother attendant circumstances supported a finding of reasonable suspicion that the menwere involved in criminal activity (see People v Martinez, 80 NY2d 444 [1992];People v Williams, 73AD3d 1097 [2010]; People v Warren, 276 AD2d 505 [2000]).
We likewise reject the contention that the hearing court erred in denying suppressionof the showup identification of the defendant, made shortly after the robberies occurredand within blocks of the two crime scenes. A showup is permissible where, as in thiscase, it is conducted in close physical and temporal proximity to the commission of acrime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification (see People vOrtiz, 90 NY2d 533 [1997]; People v Julien, 100 AD3d 925 [2012]; People v Hicks, 78 AD3d1075 [2010]; People vWilliams, 73 AD3d 1097 [2010]; People v Bennett, 37 AD3d 483 [2007]). The fact that thedefendant was viewed in the company of the police and in the vicinity of several patrolcars did not render the showup identification constitutionally infirm (see People v Mais, 71 AD3d1163 [2010]; People vGonzalez, 57 AD3d 560 [2008]; People v Siler, 45 AD3d 1403 [2007]; People v Pierre, 2 AD3d461 [2003]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless [*2]accord greatdeference to the jury's opportunity to view the witness, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewingthe record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Similarly unavailing are the defendant's contentions regarding the amendment of theindictment (see CPL 200.70 [1]; People v Daum, 278 AD2d 505 [2000];People ex rel. Shaffer v Kuhlmann, 173 AD2d 1034 [1991]; People vAmes, 115 AD2d 543 [1985]), ineffective assistance of counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]), and the imposition of consecutive sentences (see People v Ramirez, 89NY2d 444, 454 [1996]; Peoplev Ayala, 36 AD3d 827 [2007]; People v Niles, 258 AD2d 478 [1999]).
The defendant's remaining contentions regarding prosecutorial misconduct andimproper summation remarks are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People vRomero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Floyd, 97 AD3d 837 [2012]) and, in any event,without merit. Mastro, Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.