Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the showup at which he was identified by the complainant was not unduly suggestive. "Showup procedures are permissible [where, as here,] they are conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification" ( People v Gilyard, 32 AD3d 1046, 1046). Nor does the fact that the defendant was handcuffed at the time of the identification necessarily render the showup unduly suggestive ( see People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541, 544 [1991]; see also People v Loo, 14 AD3d 716; People v Pierre, 2 AD3d 461). Furthermore, the showup was part of an "unbroken chain of events" from the moment the defendant was apprehended until he was identified by the witness ( People v Mitchell, 185 AD2d 249, 251).
The prosecutor's comments during summation did not improperly shift the burden of proof nor otherwise deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).