Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony, since the People met their burden of establishing the reasonableness of the police conduct and the lack of suggestiveness in the pretrial identification procedure (see, People v Rosa, 65 N.Y.2d 380; People v Dodt, 61 N.Y.2d 408; People v Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361; People v Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757). The People's failure to preserve all three books of photographs viewed by the witnesses does not mandate a different result. Although it is ordinarily incumbent upon the People to preserve a photographic array to enable a court to determine whether the identification procedure employed was unduly suggestive (see, People v Foti, 83 A.D.2d 641), in a situation where, as here, a witness views several books of photographs, "[t]he sheer volume and scope of [the] procedure militates against the presence of suggestiveness" (People v Jerome, 111 A.D.2d 874; see, People v Livieri, 171 A.D.2d 815; People v Wiredo, 138 A.D.2d 652).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the arresting officer's testimony regarding his post-arrest conduct is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel failed to object to the trial court's limiting instructions (see, CPL 470.05; People v Snyder, 124 A.D.2d 394). In any event, while equivocal, the evidence tended to prove the People's contention that the defendant fled from the police because he was guilty of the instant crime (see, People v Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302; People v Limage, 57 A.D.2d 906, affd 45 N.Y.2d 845). Any ambiguity, as well as the limited probative worth of that evidence, was made perfectly clear to the jury by the trial court's lengthy limiting instructions (see, People v Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302, supra; People v Yaghnam, 135 A.D.2d 763; People v Price, 135 A.D.2d 750).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.