It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. Defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating "the existence of defects impairing the integrity of the Grand Jury proceeding and giving rise to a possibility of prejudice" ( People v. Santmyer, 255 A.D.2d 871, 871-872, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 902; see People v. Wood [Chester], 291 A.D.2d 824). The court also properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the showup identifications of defendant by the victim and two eyewitnesses. Defendant was apprehended a short distance from the crime scene within 50 minutes of the crime. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the fact that he was in handcuffs and standing next to police officers during the showup procedure does not render the procedure unduly suggestive as a matter of law ( see People v. Boyd, 272 A.D.2d 898, 899, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 850; People v. Hendrick, 192 A.D.2d 1100, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 755). Defendant further contends that the showup procedure was unduly suggestive because the two eyewitnesses were in the same police vehicle when they identified defendant. We disagree. Cumulative witness identifications are not presumptively forbidden ( see People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545), and in this case the showup procedure was permissible "in the interest of prompt identification" ( People v. Johnson, 221 A.D.2d 1016, 1017).