Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant improperly relies on testimony elicited at trial in support of his contention that the showup procedure at issue here was unduly suggestive. A suppression determination must be based on the evidence before the hearing court, and this Court is precluded from reviewing trial testimony in determining whether the hearing court acted properly ( see People v South, 47 AD3d 734, 735; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d 467; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420). Since the defendant did not move to reopen the hearing based on the trial testimony, or move for a mistrial, the defendant's contention in this regard is not properly before this Court ( see People v South, 47 AD3d at 735; People v DeBaptiste, 286 AD2d 341; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d at 467; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d at 420).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review.