Opinion
February 2, 1996
Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly determined that the showup identification of defendant was conducted promptly and was not unduly suggestive. Defendant was apprehended a short distance from the crime scene, and the showup was conducted at the crime scene, 45 to 50 minutes after the crime was committed (see, People v. Hartsfield, 210 A.D.2d 949, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 862; People v. Hendrick, 192 A.D.2d 1100, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 755). The argument that the police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to order defendant out of his car was not advanced at the suppression hearing and thus is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Dancey, 57 N.Y.2d 1033, 1035; People v. Brinson, 177 A.D.2d 1019, 1020, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 998). Were we to exercise our power to review that argument as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]), we would nevertheless affirm. "[T]he right to stop a moving vehicle is distinct from the right to approach the occupants of a parked vehicle" (People v. Spencer, 84 N.Y.2d 749, 753, cert denied ___ US ___, 116 S.Ct. 271). While reasonable suspicion is required to stop a moving vehicle, here, defendant was in a parked car. The police had the right to approach the parked car in which defendant and his companion were occupants because they had an objective, credible reason for doing so (see, People v. Ocasio, 85 N.Y.2d 982, 984, citing People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 475-476), based upon the description by the victim of her assailants and their vehicle.