The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony. The record supports the determinations made by a judicial hearing officer and adopted by the court. The circumstances of this prompt, on-the-scene showup identification were sufficiently established through the testimony of a police officer who stated that the victim, through an interpreter, identified defendant ( see People v. You, 270 A.D.2d 6, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 793; People v. Delances, 262 A.D.2d 249, 250, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1044), and it was not necessary for the victim to testify at the hearing ( see Delances, supra). Defendant's argument that the interpreter, who witnessed the crime, may have influenced the victim, is speculative ( see People v. Truesdale, 299 A.D.2d 289, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 659) and does not satisfy defendant's burden of proving that the showup was unduly suggestive ( see People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533, 537).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.