ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive merely because he was identified by a witness at the crime scene almost one hour after the crime occurred (see, People v. Thompson, 215 A.D.2d 604, 605; People v. West, 128 A.D.2d 570).
The trial court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) was a provident exercise of discretion. If the defendant had elected to testify on his own behalf, the ruling would have allowed inquiry into his convictions of four prior crimes, but not into the underlying facts of those crimes. The defendant's previous convictions were probative on the issues of credibility and his willingness to place his interests above those of society (see, People v. McGill, 260 A.D.2d 581).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.