The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The showup identification at issue was justified by its close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime, notwithstanding the fact that another witness had already identified defendant ( People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545). The manner in which the identification was conducted was within permissible limits and was not so unnecessarily suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification ( see e. g. People v. Moore, 264 A.D.2d 693, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 826). In preparing a witness for his grand jury testimony, the prosecutor properly displayed photographs of defendant and the other suspects in order to review their respective roles in the crime ( see People v. Hopkins, 284 A.D.2d 223, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 902).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.