Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Love, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1982-11-11
Citations: 57 N.Y.2d 1023
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Love, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 1023–1025

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Love, Appellant.
Argued October 11, 1982
decided November 11, 1982
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Darren O’Connor and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney {Stanley K. Shapiro and Donald J. Siewert of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
To the extent that defendant seeks to argue that the showup was not necessary because Officer Phillips had himself identified defendant, the point has not been preserved for our review. Moreover, though the better practice when feasible is not to conduct a showup before a group of witnesses (People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 249), procedures that are less than ideal may, as Adams held, be tolerable in the interest of prompt identification. This is particularly so in a case such as the present, in view of the proximity of the apprehension of defendant in time and space (five minutes and one block, cf. People v Brnja, 50 NY2d 366) to the scene of the crime. Nor was there any allegation that the conduct of the police was in any way impermissibly suggestive.
Defendant's second claim of error, bolstering contrary to People v Trowbridge (305 NY 471), was not preserved, the objection stated having been no more than the one word "objection" (People v West, 56 NY2d 662).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed in memorandum.