Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the hearing court's determination, and as we have previously held, the witness's status as a police officer does not serve to render the identification procedure at bar confirmatory in nature (see, People v. Cinatus, 188 A.D.2d 481, supra). However, that the witness was a police officer is relevant in determining whether or not the identification procedure employed was unduly suggestive. Given that the identification took place in relatively close spatial and temporal proximity to the witness's sighting of the perpetrator, and that the witness was a police officer, we find that the identification procedure employed was not unduly suggestive, and therefore the testimony with respect thereto was properly admitted at the trial (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; cf., People v. Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 828).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.