PEOPLE v. FELIZ

Defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied in all respects. The first showup, conducted within minutes after the robberies took place, was justified ( see, People v. James, 192 A.D.2d 496, 497, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1074), and the fact that two witnesses simultaneously viewed defendant did not render the showup impermissibly suggestive, since they were instructed not to say anything until afterwards, when they were questioned separately ( see, People v. Barnes, 219 A.D.2d 527, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 919). The second showup, conducted 20 to 30 minutes after the first one, and held at the hospital where the victim was waiting to be treated for her injuries, was still in close temporal proximity to the crime and was not rendered unnecessary by defendant's arrest ( People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541).

The court's charge concerning the element of intent, when read as a whole, was appropriate ( see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817). The court was under no obligation, in discussing intent, to constantly remind the jury that identity was in issue.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Wallach, JJ.