November 16, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly determined that the guns recovered in the area where the defendant had been pursued by the police constituted abandoned property. Since "[i]t is well settled * * * that `[p]roperty which has in fact been abandoned is outside the protection of the constitutional provisions' (People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 592, cert denied 449 U.S. 1023)" (People v Anderson, 118 A.D.2d 788, 790, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1050), the court was correct in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence.
The identification at the police station showup was suppressed. However, we find that the court correctly ruled that the complainant could make an in-court identification of the defendant. The complainant had ample opportunity to view the defendant during the commission of the crime, thereby providing him with an independent basis for his in-court identification (see, People v. Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173, 174).
Finally, we have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.