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. Jackson, 180 A.D.2d 756, 757; People v. Holder, 178 A.D.2d 436, 437; People v. Adams, 163 A.D.2d 318, 319). Contrary to the defendant's contention, his showup identification was not unduly suggestive because he was handcuffed and in the presence of uniformed police officers during the showup procedure ( see People v. Grassia, 195 A.D.2d 607; People v. Whitney, 158 A.D.2d 734; People v. Capeheart, 151 A.D.2d 592, 592-593; People v. Dennis, 125 A.D.2d 325, 326).
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence a videotape of the crime scene ( see People v. Hill, 281 A.D.2d 917, 918). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error was harmless ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the fact that the sentence imposed was greater than that offered during plea negotiations is no indication that the defendant was punished for exercising his right to proceed to trial ( see People v. Carillo, 297 A.D.2d 288, 289). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
McGINITY, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.