Opinion
May 10, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing testimony established that the information possessed by the police was sufficient to justify the brief, minimally-intrusive detention until the complainant could arrive at the showup and possibly identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v DeJesus, 185 A.D.2d 855; People v Cumberbatch, 171 A.D.2d 672). Furthermore, the showup was made in close temporal and special proximity to the scene of the crime and served the societal interest of obtaining a prompt identification (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-545; People v Holmes, 159 A.D.2d 639).
While the trial court improperly admitted evidence that the police recovered a large sum of money from the defendant upon his arrest for a single robbery of approximately $20 (see, People v Portilla, 190 A.D.2d 827; People v Symbato, 72 A.D.2d 780), there was no reasonable probability that the error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Portilla, supra).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit or do not require reversal. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.