DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that showup identifications made at the crime scene by the complainant and an eyewitness were unduly suggestive is without merit ( see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543-545; People v. Williams, 299 A.D.2d 569; People v. Safford, 297 A.D.2d 828). The defendant's further contention that these showup identifications, made subsequent to an initial showup identification by another witness, should have been suppressed in the absence of exigent circumstances is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 887, 888; People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 1031). In any event, the initial showup identification made by a man on a bicycle, who did not witness the crime but came upon the scene immediately thereafter and pursued the defendant, did not negate the existence of exigent circumstances ( see People v. Duuvon, supra, at 545; People v. Sturgis, 199 A.D.2d 549, 550). Hence, the hearing court correctly permitted the prosecutor to elicit evidence of the subsequent identifications.
The testimony of a police officer that an eyewitness identified the defendant at the later showup did not constitute impermissible bolstering since the eyewitness could not positively identify the defendant in court on the basis of his present recollection ( see CPL 60.25[a][iii]; People v. Ortiz, 253 A.D.2d 710; People v. Johnson, 196 A.D.2d 765; cf. People v. Bayron, 66 N.Y.2d 77, 81).
RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.