Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although disfavored, a showup identification is permissible if, as in the instant case, it occurs in close spatial and temporal proximity to the offense and subsequent apprehension of the suspect (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-545; People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 529; People v. Sansalone, 197 A.D.2d 549; People v. Grassia, 195 A.D.2d 607). We further find that the complainant's inadvertent observation of the defendant as he was placed in a patrol car, immediately prior to identifying him as the perpetrator during the showup, did not taint the identification procedure (see generally, People v Smith, 203 A.D.2d 396; People v. Carbonaro, 162 A.D.2d 459).
The defendant's claims that the Grand Jury proceedings were defective are either not reviewable upon this Court's finding that the conviction is based upon legally sufficient trial evidence (CPL 210.30; People v. Ceruti, 209 A.D.2d 711; People v. Jones, 204 A.D.2d 659; People v. Gonzalez, 199 A.D.2d 412; People v. Cunningham, 163 A.D.2d 412) or do not warrant dismissal of the indictment (see, CPL 210.35).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenblatt, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.