Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, the show-up identification, which was conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime, was reasonable under the circumstances and not unduly suggestive ( see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327; People v Rosa, 231 AD2d 534; People v Mitchell, 185 AD2d 249; cf. People v Ortiz, 90 NY2d 533). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.