Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the verdict should have been set aside because the complainant's testimony revealed that the showup identification procedure was unduly suggestive. This issue was not preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to move for a mistrial or to reopen the Wade hearing ( see, People v. Ore, 157 A.D.2d 749; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the defendant's contention is not supported by the record. Given the temporal and spatial proximity of the showup identification to the commission of the crimes, and the circumstances under which the showup was made, we hold that the identification procedure was not so unnecessarily suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification ( see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.