THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. TIMOTHY AUSTIN ALSO KNOWN AS KHALI ALI DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2010)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:  Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19).   We reject the contention of defendant that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to preserve that challenge for our review inasmuch as defendant failed to demonstrate that it would be meritorious (see People v. Bassett, 55 AD3d 1434, 1438, lv denied 11 NY3d 922).   Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, “the showup identification procedure, which was conducted in geographic and temporal proximity to the crime, was not unduly suggestive” (People v. Davis, 48 AD3d 1120, 1122, lv denied 10 NY3d 957;  see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545), despite the fact that defendant was seated in a police vehicle when viewed by the victim (see People v. Robinson, 8 AD3d 1028, 1029-1030, affd 5 NY3d 738, cert denied 546 U.S. 988;  Duuvon,77 N.Y.2d at 545;  People v. Ricks, 270 A.D.2d 882, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 802).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court