In re Madeline D.

• Citation: 125 A.D.3d 965,5 N.Y.S.3d 169,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01634
• Parties: In the Matter of MADELINE D. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Decision Date: 25 February 2015
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

125 A.D.3d 965

5 N.Y.S.3d 169

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01634

In the Matter of MADELINE D. (Anonymous), appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 25, 2015.

Geanine Towers, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Susan Paulson of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), dated March 28, 2014. The order adjudicated Madeline D. to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed her on probation under the supervision of the New York City Department of Probation for a period of 24 months. The appeal brings up for review an order of that court (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), dated December 17, 2013, which denied the motion of Madeline D. to suppress identification evidence, and an order of fact-finding of that court (Emily M. Olshansky, J.), dated January 14, 2014, which, after a hearing, found that the appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The suppression court properly found that the showup procedure at which the appellant was identified was not unduly suggestive. “ ‘While showup procedures are generally disfavored, they are permissible, even in the absence of exigent circumstances, when they are spatially and temporally proximate to the commission of the crime and not unduly suggestive’ ” (People v. Cuesta, 103 A.D.3d 913, 915, 959 N.Y.S.2d 744, quoting People v. Berry, 50 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 856 N.Y.S.2d 228 ). In this case, the appellant was detained approximately 15 minutes after the commission of the subject offenses and a few blocks away from where they were committed. She was then immediately returned to the crime scene, where a subway booth clerk, who had witnessed the commission of the offenses, identified her as one of the perpetrators. Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the showup was not rendered unduly suggestive merely because the appellant was handcuffed (see People v. Calero, 105 A.D.3d 864, 865, 962 N.Y.S.2d 665 ; People v. Bitz, 209 A.D.2d 709, 709–710, 619 N.Y.S.2d 158 ), or because the witness knew that the police had a suspect or suspects in custody (see People v. Crumble, 43 A.D.3d 953, 953, 842 N.Y.S.2d 35 ; People v. Gil, 21 A.D.3d 1120, 1121, 803 N.Y.S.2d 634 ).

Contrary to the appellant's contention, her detention by the police was not unlawful. The hearing evidence demonstrated that the police had reasonable suspicion that the appellant and the three individuals accompanying her were the individuals described in a radio report as the perpetrators of a robbery which had been committed only a few minutes prior to the stop of the appellant and her companions. The police were justified in stopping and detaining the appellant and the three other individuals based on the similarities between...