DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The information provided by the eyewitness to the robbery provided the police with reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant to rapidly confirm or dispel the suspicion that he had committed a crime ( see People v. Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v. Peterson, 295 A.D.2d 452). Moreover, the fact that the police may have used handcuffs to detain the defendant for the purpose of a showup identification did not transform the detention into a full-blown arrest ( see People v. Allen, 73 N.Y.2d 378). Further, the defendant's contention that the showup identification was unduly suggestive is also without merit, because it was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the offense and to the subsequent apprehension of the defendant ( see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Attebery, 223 A.D.2d 714, 716).
The defendant's remaining contentions with regard to prosecutorial misconduct are for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
SMITH, J.P., LUCIANO, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.