People v. Hall

124 A.D.2d 819, 508 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62147

Opinion

The complaining witness was able to observe the defendant on three separate occasions during the robbery: once during the initial encounter when they were 12 to 18 inches apart and the defendant asked the complainant for his money; again, during the chase, when the complainant looked back to see if the defendant was still in pursuit; and a third time when they stopped approximately 10 to 15 feet from one another and exchanged words. The accumulated opportunities to observe provided a sufficient independent source for an in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant (see, People v Richards, 119 AD2d 597; Matter of Michael J., 117 AD2d 602; People v Codrington, 109 AD2d 891; People v Gordon, 87 AD2d 636), and the court therefore properly refused to suppress any in-court identification testimony which the People proposed to offer at trial (see, People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 245). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.