The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supported defendant's conviction of robbery rather than attempted robbery based upon his role in the theft of car keys ( see, People v. Laster, 241 A.D.2d 306, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 941). The showup procedure was not unduly suggestive and was permissible given the fact that the victim identified defendant within 10 minutes of the robbery and only a short distance from where the crime had occurred ( see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541). Defendant failed to preserve his current challenges to the prosecutor's summation due to his failure to object, or failure to request further relief after the objection was sustained ( People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). In any event, the claims would not warrant reversal. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.