Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the determination of the Supreme Court that the showup identification of the defendant was not suggestive in that it occurred in close proximity in time and place to the commission of the crime (see, e.g., People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v. Suarez, 201 A.D.2d 747).
We reject the defendant's claim that the prosecution violated the requirements of People v. Rosario ( 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 386 U.S. 866) by failing to provide the defendant with notes taken by a police officer during a conversation with one of the complainants. In the absence of any factual showing that these notes actually existed (see, People v. Consolazio, 40 N.Y.2d 446, 455; People v. Velez, 161 A.D.2d 823), the prosecutor's representation sufficed to resolve this issue (see, People v Cole, 196 A.D.2d 634). Lawrence, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.