| People v Santana |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 01943 [159 AD3d 926] |
| March 21, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jeison Santana, Appellant. |
N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, NY (Tammy Feman and Argun M. Ulgen of counsel), forappellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Yael V. Levy and Kevin C. King ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Teresa K.Corrigan, J.), rendered February 25, 2015, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon a juryverdict finding him guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree and attempted petit larceny,and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to astipulation in lieu of motions (Meryl J. Berkowitz, J.), of the suppression of showupidentification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People were not required to provide him withnotice of the alleged showup identification testimony of a certain police officer, since the officerdid not make an identification of the defendant within the meaning of CPL 710.30 (seePeople v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 551-552 [1979]; People v Dotson, 30 AD3d 181, 181 [2006]; People vMoon, 180 AD2d 652, 652 [1992]; cf. People v Pacquette, 25 NY3d 575, 578 [2015]; People v Boyer, 6 NY3d 427[2006]; People v Newball, 76 NY2d 587 [1990]). Further, contrary to the defendant'scontention, the hearing court properly declined to suppress the complainant's showupidentification testimony, since the showup took place in close spatial and temporal proximity tothe commission of the crime (see Peoplev Johnson, 104 AD3d 705, 706 [2013]; People v Jacob, 94 AD3d 1142, 1144 [2012]; People v Gonzalez, 57 AD3d 560,561 [2008]; People v Cruz, 31AD3d 660, 661 [2006]; People v Rodney, 237 AD2d 541, 541-542 [1997]) and wasnot unduly suggestive (see People vJerry, 126 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2015]; People v Gonzalez, 57 AD3d at 561; People v Crumble, 43 AD3d 953,953 [2007]; People v Grassia, 195 AD2d 607, 607 [1993]; People v Rowlett, 193AD2d 768, 768 [1993]; cf. e.g. People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 248-249 [1981]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,491-492 [2008]; People v Campbell,142 AD3d 623, 623-624 [2016]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we findthat the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonabledoubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]). Rivera, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Iannacci, JJ., concur.