Opinion
January 25, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Doran, J., Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court should have suppressed the station house showup identification of the defendant as the People failed to show that it would have been unduly burdensome for the arresting officer to have conducted a lineup and that no exigency existed to warrant the showup (see, People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523). However, the court properly found that an independent source existed for the in-court identification of the defendant (see, United States v Wade, 388 U.S. 218; People v Martin, 101 A.D.2d 869). The victim testified that she was conversing with the defendant face to face in a well-lit shop for 15 minutes before he robbed her and was then face to face with him during much of the crime. Further, the victim was able to give a detailed description to the police and positively identified him about an hour after the crime.
Any error in permitting the victim to testify as to the showup was harmless as the evidence against the defendant, including the strong in-court identification, the police officers' observation of the defendant leaving the scene and their prompt apprehension of him based upon the victim's description of her attacker, his incriminating statements to the police at the time of his arrest, and the physical evidence recovered from his person, provided overwhelming proof of guilt (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.