Filed Date: 1/3/2014
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his request to charge assault in the third degree as a lesser included offense (see generally People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63 [1982]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (see People v Burnett, 100 AD3d 1561, 1562 [2012]), we reject that contention (see generally People v Freeman, 46 AD3d 1375, 1376 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 840 [2008]; People v Saunders, 292 AD2d 780, 780 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 681 [2002]).
Contrary to defendant’s further contention, “the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him for a showup identification procedure based on the totality of the circumstances, including ‘a radio transmission providing a general description of the perpetrator[ ] of [the] crime[,] . . . the . . . proximity of the defendant to the site of the crime, the brief period of time between the crime and the discovery of the defendant near the location of the crime, and the [officer’s] observation of the defendant, who matched the radio-transmitted description’ ” (People v Casillas, 289 AD2d 1063, 1064 [2001], lv