Defendant Angel Ramirez is charged with two counts of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree, two counts of Attempted Assault in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree and other charges arising out of an incident involving two complainants that occurred on December 3, 2005. Defendant moved to suppress the complainants' identifications and property recovered from his person by the police. Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the Honorable Troy K. Webber dated February 13, 2007, defendant was granted a Wade/Mapp/Dunaway hearing. The hearing was conducted before me on September 11, 2007 and September 12, 2007. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is denied.

The People called two witnesses: Police Officer William Seligson ("Seligson") and Police Officer Adrian Uruci ("Uruci"). The Court finds these witnesses to be credible and credits their testimony in all material respects.

Upon his return, Seligson was flagged down by passengers in a tow truck that he had not previously noticed at the location. In the tow truck were Cesar Paz ("Paz") and Matthew Potash [*2]("Potash").^[FN1] Id. Paz told Seligson that, following an argument, they had been fired at by three individuals who left in a green minivan. Paz also provided the license plate number of the minivan, DGM3117. Id. at 20-24, 37. Paz told Seligson that the three individuals were male Hispanics, two of whom had ponytails and one of whom had a brown leather coat. Id. The individual with the brown leather coat and a ponytail was said to be the shooter. Id.

Seligson traced the license plate of the green minivan to a Mr. Quinones at the address of 430 East 138th Street, Bronx, New York, and went to that location, which was approximately five minutes away. Id. They arrived at about 5:30 AM. Id. at 47. There, Seligson observed three male Hispanics, including the defendant, who was wearing a brown leather jacket, white t-shirt, blue jeans and had a ponytail, another man dressed all in black, and a third with a ponytail, walking near a town car in front of the location. Id. at 23-27, 41-46. Seligson sounded his police car's siren. After exiting the vehicle, Seligson observed Johnny Caban ("Caban") hurry away and drop a gun to the ground. Id. at 25-26. The three officers with Seligson detained defendant and the two other suspects. Meanwhile, Seligson focused his attention on the gun. Id. at 27-28.

Other police officers also responded to the scene at East 138th Street. Among them was Officer Uruci, who is assigned to the 48th Precinct. Id. at 59. Uruci has been a New York City Police Officer for approximately nine years and has made over 400 arrests. Id. at 59-61. Uruci was dressed in plainclothes and driving an unmarked police car with two other officers. Id. at 61-62. Uruci had heard over the police radio that there had been gun shots fired near 1779 Webster Avenue and that a vehicle linked to the shooting was registered to an address at East 138th Street. Id. at 62-63. Uruci observed other police officers, including Seligson, participate in detaining defendant and his two companions and heard one of the police officers yell, "gun." Id. at 63-64, 78-80. Uruci assisted in the detention of one of the men. Id. at 64-65. Defendant and the other two men were then handcuffed and surrounded by plainclothed police officers. Id. at 67-68.

Two individuals who Uruci understood to be the complainants were brought to 440 East 138th Street at approximately 5:50 AM in a marked police van. Id. at 65-68. One of the complainants was seated alone in the first row and the other was seated in the row behind him. Id. Uruci did not ask them their names and never knew their names. Id. Uruci asked them if they were the victims and if they recognized anybody. Id. at 68-69. Each replied affirmatively and stated in substance, almost simultaneously, that those were the men involved. Id. Further, the person in the second row stated that defendant was the one who had fired the gun at them, and also described the actions of the other two individuals. Id. at 69-71, 84-87. The police van was approximately twenty feet from defendant when this identification occurred. Id. at 71. Although it was still dark outside, the street was well-lit from street lights. Id. at 71-72. Defendant was then arrested. Id. at 70.

Thereafter, a wrist band was taken from defendant and vouchered by the police. The wrist band is apparently associated with an establishment called the "Jet Set Café." The Jet Set Café is located on Webster Avenue between 175th Street and 176th Street. Id. at 30-31.

For the Mapp/Dunaway portion of the hearing, the People had the burden of going forward with credible evidence tending to show that the police officers acted legally, and the [*3]defendant had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the officers acted illegally. See, People v. Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 367 (1971). For the Wade portion of the hearing, the People had the "burden of going forward to establish the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of any undue suggestiveness in the pretrial identification procedure," and the defendant had the "ultimate burden of proving that the procedure was unduly suggestive." People v. Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 (1990). The People have met their burden of going forward, and the defendant has not met the ultimate burden of proof of showing that the officers acted unreasonably or that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive.

First, the People presented ample evidence to meet their burden of going forward on the Dunaway issue. The police had reasonable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that it had been committed by defendant. See, People v. White, 293 AD2d 327, 328 (1st Dept.), appeal denied, 98 NY2d 682 (2002). Defendant fit the description of the shooter as relayed to the police by an identified citizen, and he, along with two other people who similarly matched the descriptions given by the complainants, were found to be at the location at which the green minivan was registered. See, People v. Brown, 14 AD3d 356 (1st Dept.), appeal denied, 4 NY3d 852 (2005); People v. Nelson, 24 A.D3d 253, 254 (1st Dept. 2005), appeal denied, 6 NY3d 816 (2006). This was all part of an unbroken sequence of events that led squarely to defendant and his two companions. See, People v. Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544-45 (1992). Moreover, even before the police detained anyone, defendant's alleged cohort, Caban, was seen throwing a gun to the ground. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to detain defendant pending an identification by the complainants. See, People v. Quintana, 245 AD2d 190, 190-91 (1st Dept. 1997), appeal denied, 91 NY2d 944 (1998). Thus, the People have met their burden of going forward with evidence tending to show that the police's actions were lawful.

Second, the People presented ample evidence to meet their burden of going forward on the Wade issue. Although show-up identifications are generally disfavored, these were made by both complainants within close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime and were part of an unbroken chain of events. Duuvon, 77 NY2d at 544-45; People v. Ramos, 261 AD2d 149 (1st Dept.), appeal denied, 93 NY2d 1025 (1999); People v. McBride, 242 AD2d 482 (1st Dept.), appeal denied, 91 NY2d 943 (1997). Although defendant was in handcuffs and being guarded when the identifications were made, this was appropriate as a precautionary measure; after all, Caban had just attempted to flee and had thrown a gun to the ground. See, People v. Gatling, 38 AD3d 239 (1st Dept.), appeal denied, 9 NY3d 865 (2007). True, Officer Uruci did not know the names of the complainants. However, at the time of the identification procedure, he did ask them if they were the victims, they had arrived by police van to the location, and one was able to tell him what each individual had allegedly done. See Minutes, at 84-87. Seligson also confirmed that Officer Uruci had spoken with the complainants, Paz and Potash, in the police van. Id. at 28-30. Thus, there was sufficient indicia of reliability to ensure that defendant was in fact identified by the complainants. The motion to suppress the pre-trial identifications will be denied, and there is no need to conduct an independent source hearing. People v. Jones, 215 AD2d 244 (1st Dept.), appeal denied, 86 NY2d 796 (1995).

Finally, inasmuch as the arrest of defendant was proper and the wrist band was duly recovered as part of a search incident to a lawful arrest, there is no basis to suppress the physical evidence. See, People v. Capellan, 38 AD3d 393, 394 (1st Dept. 2007). [*4]

The motion to suppress is denied in all respects.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated:September 17, 2007

Bronx, New York________________________

Joseph J. Dawson, A.S.C.J.