Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendant's showup identification was close in time and space to the scene of the crime, the hearing court properly concluded that defendant's identification was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Nettles, 154 A.D.2d 925; People v Jones, 149 A.D.2d 970, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 742). Defendant's remaining contention that complainant's identification testimony should have been suppressed because the police lacked probable cause to arrest him was waived by defendant's failure to make that suppression motion (see, CPL 710.70; People v O'Neil, 152 A.D.2d 966, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 816; People v Martinez, 105 A.D.2d 873, 874).