Opinion
February 28, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court properly declined to suppress identification testimony since the hearing evidence established that the prompt showup procedure was permissible. The victim identified the defendant approximately 20 minutes after giving a description to the police and the defendant was apprehended only a quarter to a half-mile away from the scene of the crime. The factual circumstances represented one unbroken chain of events — crime, escape, pursuit, apprehension, and identification — all of which occurred in rapid sequence within a limited geographic area (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-545; People v Hawkins, 188 A.D.2d 616; People v. Mitchell, 185 A.D.2d 249). Moreover, the County Court correctly determined that the People had established an independent basis for an in-court identification, given the victim's observations of the defendant during the assault (see, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241, 251; People v. Ramos, 42 N.Y.2d 834; People v. Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173, 174).
The defendant's claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions of assault in the first degree and attempted rape in the first degree were not preserved for appellate review since he failed to assert the claims in support of his argument for dismissal of these counts before the trial court (see, People v. Logan, 74 N.Y.2d 859; People v Colavito, 70 N.Y.2d 996; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, we find that the injuries sustained by the victim were clearly sufficient to support a finding by the jury of serious physical injury (see, People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied 498 U.S. 824; People v. Meneses, 195 A.D.2d 527; People v. Brown, 184 A.D.2d 856; People v. Blunt, 176 A.D.2d 741; People v. Sutter, 162 A.D.2d 644). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the first degree and attempted rape in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The sentence imposed on the defendant was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Velasquez, 76 N.Y.2d 905, 908; People v. Spence, 182 A.D.2d 845). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.