MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in rejecting his Batson objection to the prosecutor's exercise of a peremptory challenge ( see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79). The explanation of the prosecutor that the prospective juror would not make eye contact with him was race-neutral ( see People v. Bodine, 283 A.D.2d 979, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 898; People v. Diaz, 269 A.D.2d 766, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 852), and the court's determination that the explanation was not pretextual is entitled to great deference ( see People v. Carelock, 278 A.D.2d 851, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 757). The court also properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the identification testimony of an eyewitness who identified defendant at a showup procedure conducted a few blocks away from the robbery and repeated that identification within minutes at the crime scene. "[T]he showup was reasonable under the circumstances — that is, . . . conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime — and the procedure used was not unduly suggestive" ( People v. Brisco, 99 N.Y.2d 596, 597). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.