DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
At trial, the defense counsel argued that the testimony of several of the People's witnesses contradicted the suppression hearing testimony of the officer who conducted a showup identification of the defendant, and moved for a new hearing on the ground that the officer had committed perjury. The Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Any discrepancies between the testimony at the suppression hearing and at trial were minor (see, People v. Mack, 224 A.D.2d 447 ) and, in any event, were not dispositive of the issue of whether the showup was unduly suggestive (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541 ; People v. Sharpe, 259 A.D.2d 639 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.