| Matter of Eljihn C. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09099 [134 AD3d 819] |
| December 9, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Eljihn C., a Person Alleged to be aJuvenile Delinquent, Appellant. |
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Scott Shorr and MelanieT. West of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (MichaelAmbrosio, J.), dated January 21, 2015. The order adjudicated Eljihn C. a juveniledelinquent, upon an order of fact-finding of that court dated November 5, 2014, which,after a hearing, found that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, wouldhave constituted the crimes of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree,unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, andplaced him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal from the order ofdisposition brings up for review the order of fact-finding and the denial, after a hearing,of that branch of Eljihn C.'s omnibus motion which was to suppress identificationtestimony.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the evidence at a suppression hearingestablished that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him for the purposeof conducting a showup identification (see People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223[1976]; Matter of Jose T.,127 AD3d 875, 876 [2015]; Matter of Madeline D., 125 AD3d 965, 966 [2015]; People v Peterson, 110 AD3d1103, 1103 [2013]). The fact that the officers used handcuffs to detain the appellantand other individuals while awaiting the arrival of the complainant for the showupidentification "did not transform the detention into a full-blown arrest" (People vWorthy, 308 AD2d 555, 555 [2003]; see People v Allen, 73 NY2d 378[1989]; Matter of Jose T., 127 AD3d at 876).
The showup identification procedure, which was conducted in close spatial andtemporal proximity to the crime, was not unduly suggestive (see Matter of JoseT., 127 AD3d at 876; People v Peterson, 110 AD3d at 1104; People v Calero, 105 AD3d864, 865 [2013]; People vRivera, 59 AD3d 467 [2009]; People v Jay, 41 AD3d 615 [2007]). Furthermore, ashowup identification is "not rendered unduly suggestive by the simultaneous display ofmultiple suspects" (People v Bumbray, 259 AD2d 364, 364 [1999]).Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (seeMatter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Jamal G., 127 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2015]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellantwas one of the perpetrators who committed the acts complained of (see Matter ofJamal G., 127 AD3d at 1082; [*2]Matter of Tyquan C., 123AD3d 502, 503 [2014]; Matter of Anthony A., 121 AD3d 885, 886 [2014]).Furthermore, the appellant's conduct before, during, and after the acts established beyonda reasonable doubt that he acted in concert to commit the charged acts (see Matter of Tyrika L., 110AD3d 886, 887 [2013]; Matter of Kenyetta F., 49 AD3d 540, 541 [2008]).Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof the evidence (see Matter of Jamal G., 127 AD3d at 1082; Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d617, 617-618 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seeMatter of Jamal G., 127 AD3d at 1082; Matter of Victor I., 57 AD3d 778, 780 [2008]; Matter of Brooklyn B., 77AD3d 934, 935 [2010]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that theFamily Court's fact-finding determination that the appellant was one of the participants inthe acts underlying the charges in the petition was not against the weight of the evidence(see Matter of Jamal G., 127 AD3d at 1082; Matter of Tyquan C., 123AD3d at 503; Matter of Anthony A., 121 AD3d at 886).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Austin, Millerand Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.