Opinion
July 8, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Before trial, defendant moved, inter alia, to suppress identification testimony on the ground that the photographic showup procedure employed by the police was unduly suggestive and conducive to a substantial likelihood of misidentification ( see, Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384). Following a hearing, the court (Owens, J.) denied the motion, concluding that the identification procedure was proper and that suppression was not required.
Defendant contends for the first time on this appeal that suppression was required because his identification was obtained as a result of an illegal arrest. Because defendant failed to raise this issue in connection with his motion to suppress identification testimony, no evidence was taken on the question of whether the police had probable cause to arrest him, thereby foreclosing review of the facts and failing to present any issue of law with respect thereto ( see, People v. Martin 50 N.Y.2d 1029; People v. Chirasello, 99 A.D.2d 759, 760; People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; see also, People v. Carolina, 112 A.D.2d 244). Moreover, there is no basis to consider it pursuant to our discretionary power to review unpreserved error in the interest of justice ( see, People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22, 44-45).
Defendant also contends that the identification evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt of the crime of robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Pointing to minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the People's witnesses, defendant challenges the credibility, reliability and the weight of their testimony.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must, we find that the record contains evidence sufficient in quantity and quality to support the verdict ( see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied ___ US ___, 105 S Ct 327; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). Issues of credibility, reliability and the weight to be given to the evidence were for the jury to resolve, and we find no basis to overturn its verdict ( People v. Lee, 308 N.Y. 302, 304; Barnet v. Cannizzaro, 3 A.D.2d 745, 747).
We have examined defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised pro se, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.