Opinion
August 1, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The majority of the defendant's contentions regarding the alleged suggestiveness of the showup identification are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029). In any event, we find that the showup procedure in this case was not unduly suggestive because it was employed in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v. Jackson, 180 A.D.2d 756; People v. Holder, 178 A.D.2d 436; People v. Adams, 163 A.D.2d 318; People v. Wilson, 149 A.D.2d 636).
Additionally, the majority of the defendant's contentions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence are also unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 160.15). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Joy and Hart, JJ., concur.