Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the showup identification procedure conducted in this case was improper inasmuch as the showup occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to the crime and was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v Sturgis, 199 A.D.2d 549; People v Grassia, 195 A.D.2d 607; People v Morales, 168 A.D.2d 85). Moreover, the defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the showup was unnecessary because probable cause for his arrest existed without the identification (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023). In any event, the contention is without merit under the circumstances of this case (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Torres, 169 A.D.2d 584).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.