Ordered that the judgments and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The Supreme Court properly declined to suppress identification testimony since the evidence established that the prompt showup procedure was permissible. The complainant identified the defendant approximately 20 minutes after giving a description to the police and the circumstances represented one unbroken chain of events — crime, escape, pursuit, apprehension, and identification — all occurring within a limited geographic area (see, People v Mitchell, 185 A.D.2d 249). Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the fact that the defendant was identified while sitting in the rear portion of an unmarked police vehicle and in the presence of recovered property does not require suppression of the identification (see, People v Capehart, 151 A.D.2d 592).
The defendant's remaining arguments are either without merit (see, People v Salaam, 172 A.D.2d 860; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137), or unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to review the unpreserved issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and O'Brien, JJ., concur.