DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The information provided by the robbery complainant gave the police reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant in order to conduct a prompt showup identification ( see People v. Sharpe, 259 A.D.2d 639; People v. Evans, 237 A.D.2d 458). The fact that the police may have used handcuffs to detain the defendant for the purpose of the showup identification did not transform the detention into a full-blown arrest ( see People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378; People v. Evans, supra at 459). In addition, the defendant's contention that the showup identification was unduly suggestive is without merit. Under the circumstances, the showup identification which was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the offense was not unduly suggestive ( see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543, cf People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533, 537).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's Batson challenge ( see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) to the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges against African-American prospective jurors. The defendant failed to demonstrate that the race-neutral reasons advanced by the prosecutor were pretextual ( see People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352; People v. McCoy, 266 A.D.2d 589, 590-591; People v. Wint, 237 A.D.2d 195, 198; see generally People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84, 89).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.