Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
By failing to comply with the requirements of CPL 270.10, the defendant waived any objections he may have had to the composition of the jury panel ( see also, People v. Branch, 244 A.D.2d 562; People v. Battle, 221 A.D.2d 648; People v. Sloan, 202 A.D.2d 525; People v. Boudin, 87 A.D.2d 133). Furthermore, the written motion that the defendant submitted on this issue was patently deficient because it failed to allege facts demonstrating that the claimed underrepresentation of black persons on the jury was the result of systematic exclusion ( see, e.g., People v. Hobson, 227 A.D.2d 643; People v. Magee, 208 A.D.2d 977).
With regard to the defendant's challenge to the showup identifications under Indictment No. 94-00337, the facts adduced at the trial may not be considered in connection with our evaluation of the hearing court's determination ( see, People v. Taylor, 206 A.D.2d 904; People v. Ore, 157 A.D.2d 749). The hearing court properly determined that the showup identifications were not unduly suggestive, given the close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime ( see, e.g., People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v. Rosa, 231 A.D.2d 534; People v. Suarez, 201 A.D.2d 747).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.