Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the eyewitness's viewing of the defendant as he was led out of the station house in handcuffs was an accidental viewing and was neither unduly suggestive nor the result of questionable police practice ( see, People v. Richardson, 212 A.D.2d 743; People v. McCoy, 211 A.D.2d 732; People v. Brown, 123 A.D.2d 875; cf., People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523; People v. Bradley, 117 A.D.2d 675). Therefore, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony.
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
O'Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.