Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Although the defendant's counsel did not move to suppress the identification testimony of the complaining witnesses based on a station house showup, that failure does not in itself establish the ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Belgrave, 143 A.D.2d 103; People v. White, 137 A.D.2d 859). In this case, the record demonstrates that such a challenge to the admissibility of the evidence would have proved unavailing (see, People v. Boero, 117 A.D.2d 814), since, given the fact that the complainants had known the defendant for at least two years, the showup identification was for confirmatory purposes, and the issue of suggestive procedures would therefore not arise (see, People v. Vasquez, 141 A.D.2d 880; People v. Belgrave, supra).
Similarly, trial counsel's strategy and tactics, while ultimately unsuccessful, were reasonable and do not sustain the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (see generally, People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223).
Furthermore, we find that the sentences imposed were not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.