Opinion
April 3, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.).
The showup identification at which the female victim identified the three defendants as the perpetrators occurred within 15 minutes of the crime and was not unduly suggestive. It was similar to other crime scene showup identifications involving multiple defendants which have been held not to be suggestive (see, People v. Peterkin, 151 A.D.2d 407; People v. Pinkney, 135 A.D.2d 748; People v. Strong, 137 A.D.2d 733; People v. Nieves, 92 A.D.2d 837). The fact that the other victim identified defendants prior to the showup in question does not effect the propriety of the challenged procedure since that identification took place in a different location and out of the presence of the female victim.
Whether or not the evidence in the present case was sufficient to establish the element of force necessary for the crime of robbery is a question of fact for the jury (see, People v. Pena, 155 A.D.2d 310). The evidence, when viewed most favorably to the People, demonstrates that defendants, acting together, first took the female victim's purse from a grocery bag held between the two victims, then two of the defendants secreted the purse while the third remained in the vicinity. After the victims approached the third defendant and demanded the return of the property, this defendant struck the female victim, whereupon the other two defendants returned and accelerated the attack. The jury was clearly warranted in concluding that the force employed by the defendants during the attack was used in connection with their retention of the stolen property and was, therefore, a continuation of the initial taking. Thus, the proof is sufficient to support the robbery convictions (see, People v. Tellis, 156 A.D.2d 260).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.