DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The showup identification was conducted in close temporal and geographic proximity to the crime (see People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533, 537; People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543), and the defendant was not handcuffed or restrained by the plainclothes officers who were with him (see People v. Brown, 181 A.D.2d 615).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FEUERSTEIN, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.