People v. Barnhill

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends the identification was unduly suggestive and unreliable because he was singled out to repeat certain phrases and because the victim who made the identification was elderly and handicapped. We disagree. Since there was no factual support in the record for the contention that the identification procedure was suggestive, a suppression hearing was not required (see CPL 710.60, subd 3; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 49; People v Alexander, 88 AD2d 749; cf. People v Carrion, 68 AD2d 827). Defendant was asked to repeat phrases only…