Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the identification made by the witness Nieves at the hospital where the defendant was being treated for a gunshot wound. This showup occurred while the defendant was not in custody, close in time to the event, while the witness's memory was fresh, and, under the circumstances in which it transpired, was not suggestive (see, People v Jeffries, 125 A.D.2d 412, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 882; People v Brnja, 70 A.D.2d 17, affd 50 N.Y.2d 366). Moreover, we note that the People established by clear and convincing evidence that there was an independent source for Nieves' in-court identification (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98; People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Martin, 101 A.D.2d 869).
The defendant claims it was error to permit Detective Peaslee to impeach the testimony given by the defendant by means of a prior inconsistent statement made through an interpreter. We disagree. This testimony was properly received in rebuttal for the reasons set forth by Judge, now Justice, Vinik in People v Perez ( 128 Misc.2d 31), and proper limiting instructions were given.
The evidence at trial was legally sufficient to support the guilty verdict (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We have examined the remaining contentions in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief and find them to be either unpreserved for our review or without merit. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.