The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification evidence. Defendant met a description that was sufficiently specific under the geographic and temporal circumstances presented herein. Therefore, the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant for investigative purposes, and was entitled to pat down and handcuff defendant as a safety precaution (see, People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378, 379-380). This detention was not elevated to an arrest when defendant was promptly taken to a nearby location for a showup identification by another officer, who had observed defendant during his efforts to escape (see, People v. Chalwell, 272 A.D.2d 217, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 889).
The hospital showup served the purpose of procuring a trustworthy identification while the victims' memories were fresh (see, People v. Blanche, 90 N.Y.2d 821; People v. Guiterrez, 270 A.D.2d 184) and was not conducted in an unduly suggestive manner. The victims viewed defendant separately, and without conferring.
A fair reading of the record establishes that defendant's claim that certain evidence should have been precluded for lack of CPL 710.30 notice was waived (see, CPL 710.30;People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903) and the issue involved was extensively litigated. In any event, any error in this regard would be harmless.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.