Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police had reasonable suspicion to detain him for a showup identification in close physical and temporal proximity to the crime (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Lynch, 254 A.D.2d 503; People v. Johnson, 244 A.D.2d 573).
Furthermore, during deliberations, the jury requested a readback of part of the testimony of the identifying witness and the court properly complied. Given that the jury's request delineated the testimony to be read back, and the court responded accordingly (see, CPL 310.30; People v. Steinberg, 79 N.Y.2d 673, 684; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 302, cert denied 459 U.S. 847), together with the fact that the jury did not request further instruction (see, People v. Chase, 225 A.D.2d 789, 790), the court's response was meaningful and does not require reversal (see, People v. Lourido, 70 N.Y.2d 428; see also, People v. Razack, 196 A.D.2d 897).
Lastly, the defendant's sentence was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.