Defendant and a codefendant were apprehended moments after and in close proximity to the scene of a nighttime street robbery. The victim flagged down a passing police car, pointed out the fleeing perpetrators, pointed out defendant moments later as the police car turned a corner in pursuit, and then provided a prompt on-the-scene confirmatory identification. Codefendant was apprehended nearby, and the victim's jacket was recovered at that location. At trial, the victim positively identified defendant as the perpetrator who had placed a knife or a sharp object to his throat as he demanded the jacket.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving due deference to the jury's findings of credibility (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 494-495), the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence. The knife or sharp object, used in this manner claimed, satisfied the dangerous instrument element of the crime (Penal Law § 10.00; People v. Thomas, 161 A.D.2d 543, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 866).
On the record presented, we find no lack of meaningful representation. Defendant misconstrues the critical distinction between a showup, such as at a precinct house, which is presumptively unreliable (People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523), and prompt, on-the-scene confirmatory identifications, which are accorded great reliability (People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541). As such, counsel's failure to raise a Riley-type challenge did not deprive defendant of meaningful representation (People v Barshai, 100 A.D.2d 253, 256, lv denied 62 N.Y.2d 804, cert denied 469 U.S. 885). Defendant's bolstering claims are unpreserved for review as a matter of law due to either a failure to object at all or to objection on other grounds (People v Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, 722, cert denied 456 U.S. 1010), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. We have considered defendant's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.