Opinion
November 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We have reviewed the record and find that the suppression court correctly concluded that the showup identification of the defendant was proper under the totality of the circumstances (see, People v. Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366; People v. Gilliard, 116 A.D.2d 657, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 943; People v. Soto, 87 A.D.2d 618). It is well settled that "one-on-one confrontations which occur in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime are indicative of good police work aimed at apprehending the perpetrator and releasing innocent suspects as soon as possible, as the witness's memory is most fresh at that time" (People v. Gilliard, supra, at 658). In the case at bar, although the showup was conducted under less than ideal conditions, we do not find it to have been unduly suggestive (see, People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020; People v. Lewis, 123 A.D.2d 716, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 830). Moreover, the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that there was a reliable independent source for each witness's identification of the defendant (see, Manson v Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98; People v. Gilliard, supra).
Our review of the record reveals that the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict. It is well settled that eyewitness testimony is sufficient to establish the element of possession of a loaded firearm (see, People v. Gonzalez, 104 A.D.2d 1007). This court must assume that the jury credited the People's witnesses, and in this regard, we are satisfied that the evidence established the elements of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, Penal Law § 265.02; People v. Bigelow, 105 A.D.2d 1110, affd 66 N.Y.2d 417). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.