Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel (see, US Const 6th, 14th Amends; N Y Const, art I, § 6). Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that defendant's attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
Defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to challenge on appeal the propriety of the suppression court's ruling on the Wade issue (see, People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1). Were we to address that issue, we would find that the court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress showup and in-court identification testimony because the showup procedures employed were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Burns, 133 A.D.2d 642, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 873). Furthermore, the record does not demonstrate that a simultaneous identification was made while defendant was seated in a police car and thus, defendant's argument regarding that issue lacks merit.