Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the showup identification was not unduly suggestive. Although showup procedures are generally disfavored, they are permissible when they are employed in close spatial and temporal proximity to the commission of the crime for the purpose of securing a prompt and reliable identification ( see, People v. Laing, 221 A.D.2d 662). In this case, the defendant was identified within 10 minutes of the commission of the crime, in the lobby of the building in which the crime was committed.
The defendant's challenges to remarks made by the prosecutor during summation are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Scotti, 220 A.D.2d 543). In any event, the prosecutor's statements did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment allowed on closing argument ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). The statements were either reasonably inferable from the evidence ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105) or fair responses to arguments raised by the defense counsel during summation ( see, People v. Rivera, 158 A.D.2d 723).
Finally, we disagree with the defendant's contention that his conviction should be reversed based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.