DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant did not preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court erred in permitting a police officer to testify regarding the victim's prior out-of-court identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery without meeting the requirements of CPL 60.25 (see CPL 470.05; People v. Victor, 271 A.D.2d 556). In any event, a proper foundation was laid for that testimony. The victim testified at the trial, which was held almost one year after the crime occurred, that "[i]t's been so long" that he could not recognize in the courtroom the person who robbed him. Further, the victim testified that he identified the perpetrator to the police immediately after the crime occurred, and that the person the police arrested was the person who robbed him. Thus, the police officer's testimony was admissible (see People v. Victor, supra; People v. Gramby, 251 A.D.2d 346).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either concern matter dehors the record and are not properly presented on direct appeal (see People v. Sacco, 294 A.D.2d 452; People v. Bennet, 284 A.D.2d 338), or are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.