MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
County Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony. Contrary to defendant's contention, the showup procedure was not unduly suggestive because it was conducted before two witnesses simultaneously ( see People v. Bratcher, 291 A.D.2d 878, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 673) or because defendant was in handcuffs ( see People v. Howington, 284 A.D.2d 1009, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 683) . The court also properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress his statements to police officers. The statements that defendant made before he received Miranda warnings were not in response to custodial interrogation ( see People v. Burnett, 228 A.D.2d 788, 790-791). With respect to the statements that defendant made after he received Miranda warnings, the record supports the court's determination that the warnings were properly given ( see People v. Dunkley, 200 A.D.2d 499, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 871). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 110.00, 125.25) under the second count of the indictment and the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [1]) under the eighth count of the indictment ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [a]). Upon our review of the record, we further conclude that the verdict with respect to those counts is not contrary to the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.