Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While two transit police detectives were driving the robbery victim through a neighborhood near the scene of the crime, the victim recognized the defendant standing in a group of men on a street corner and spontaneously identified him to the detectives. The complainant was removed from the area and the defendant was arrested. A short time later, the complainant viewed the defendant at Robbery Squad head-quarters. This showup identification procedure confirmed that the proper person was incarcerated and was consistent with good police work (see, People v Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262, 271-272; People v James, 138 A.D.2d 744; People v Brown, 124 A.D.2d 812, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 877). Therefore, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was for the suppression of identification testimony (see, People v Higgs, 111 A.D.2d 410). Moreover, as the hearing court properly found, the witness had an independent source for the in-court identification (Neil v Biggers, 409 U.S. 188; People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 251).
Similarly unpersuasive is the defendant's claim that the trial court's Sandoval ruling deprived him of a fair trial. The hearing court invoked the so-called Sandoval compromise by ruling that if the defendant testified, the prosecutor could elicit the fact that he had previously been convicted of one felony and one misdemeanor. By this ruling, the hearing court minimized the prejudicial impact of the defendant's record and properly exercised its discretion (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377; People v Padilla, 123 A.D.2d 364, 365; People v Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757, 758). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Comments