DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Showup procedures are permissible when, 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 ( see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543-544; People v. Pierre, 2 A.D.3d 461, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 600). Here, the showup identification was proper as it took place a little more than one hour after the crime and less than three miles away from the scene of the crime ( see People v. Maybell, 198 A.D.2d 108; People v. Yearwood, 197 A.D.2d 554).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's identity as the individual who burglarized the complainant's home. The complainant had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the incident, and was able to identify him at the subsequent showup identification ( see People v. Phan, 225 A.D.2d 715). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
The defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Groonell, 256 A.D.2d 356).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or involve matter dehors the record.
ALTMAN, J.P., H. MILLER, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.