We find no basis to disturb the motion court's findings that these prompt on-the-scene investigatory showups were not rendered unduly suggestive because defendant was handcuffed, or unnecessary because of a prior, equivocal, spontaneous identification ( see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 543; People v. Matthews, 199 A.D.2d 59, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 927; People v Lawhorn, 199 A.D.2d 123, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 855). The existence of a prior, spontaneous identification in a "fast-moving, uninterrupted array of activity" should not preclude a second, police-arranged identification if necessary to the "objective that the police have reasonable assurances that they have arrested or detained the right person" ( People v. Duuvon, supra, at 545). Defendant's contentions concerning lighting raised a factual dispute to be resolved by the fact-finder. Since police raised the suspects' hoods at the request of the complainants as an aid to identification, rather than as a police device to prompt an identification, no suggestiveness inhered in this procedure.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.