Opinion
April 13, 1992
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (King, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is nothing in the court's findings following the Wade hearing which would indicate that the showup conducted in the vicinity of the crime scene was unnecessarily suggestive (see, Stovall v Denno, 388 U.S. 293; People v Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 194, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020; People v Parker, 127 A.D.2d 614, 615). Showups which, as here, are close in time and location to the scene of the crime are permissible as appropriate measures to secure prompt and reliable identifications (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Brnja, 50 N.Y.2d 366; People v Morales, 173 A.D.2d 743; People v Cardwell, 158 A.D.2d 533). We note that there was an independent basis for the in-court identification, as the victim observed and conversed with the defendant at close proximity and under good lighting conditions for approximately five minutes at the time the offenses were committed (see, People v Cardwell, supra, at 533; People v Parker, supra, at 615).
The court properly exercised its discretion to impose the term of imprisonment for the burglary conviction to run consecutively to the concurrent terms of imprisonment imposed upon the assault, rape, and sodomy convictions. Although each of these crimes took place over a continuous course of activity, the burglary constituted a separate and distinct act, and was not a material element of the assault, rape, or sodomy (see, Penal Law § 70.25; see also, People v Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839, 842-843; People v Boyce, 133 A.D.2d 164; People v Dorsey, 79 A.D.2d 611; People v McMillan, 61 A.D.2d 800). Moreover, we note that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.