Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing testimony established that the information possessed by the police was sufficient to justify the brief, minimally-intrusive detention until the complainant could arrive at the showup and possibly identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery (see, People v Hicks, 68 N.Y.2d 234; People v DeJesus, 185 A.D.2d 855; People v Cumberbatch, 171 A.D.2d 672). Furthermore, the showup was made in close temporal and special proximity to the scene of the crime and served the societal interest of obtaining a prompt identification (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 544-545; People v Holmes, 159 A.D.2d 639).
While the trial court improperly admitted evidence that the police recovered a large sum of money from the defendant upon his arrest for a single robbery of approximately $20 (see, People v Portilla, 190 A.D.2d 827; People v Symbato, 72 A.D.2d 780), there was no reasonable probability that the error might have contributed to the defendant's conviction (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Portilla, supra).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit or do not require reversal. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.