Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant's identification of the defendant was a witness-initiated procedure and identification ( see, People v Dixon, 85 NY2d 218), and did not constitute an unduly suggestive showup. Nor did the complainant's trial testimony constitute improper bolstering ( see, CPL 60.30).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit.