Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that all voice identification testimony should be excluded as unreliable is contrary to long-established law and must be rejected (see, People v Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 44-45; Matter of Ryan W., 143 A.D.2d 435, 437; People v Burton, 134 A.D.2d 269; People v Mackie, 133 A.D.2d 514; People v Zocchi, 133 A.D.2d 478). Evidence of factors of perception and memory that may affect the reliability of such identifications are properly the subject of expert testimony at trial, and are admissible in the court's discretion (see, People v Mooney, 76 N.Y.2d 827). However, the defendant offered no such evidence at trial, and may not attempt such an evidentiary showing for the first time on appeal (see, CPL 470.05).
The police employed an audio-identification procedure whereby they asked the complainants to listen to tape recordings of the defendant's voice and the voices of other individuals. We find no merit in the defendant's claim that the audiotaped "lineup" was unduly suggestive. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.