There is no constitutional requirement that a defense-requested in-court lineup be conducted, as such request is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. (Sims v Sullivan, 867 F.2d 142, 145 [2d Cir 1989]; People v Pearce, 48 N.Y.2d 897; People v Grady, 133 Misc.2d 211, 227 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 1986].)
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request to preclude the witness from making an in-court identification while defendant was seated at defense counsel's table or, in the alternative, to conduct an in-court identification while he sat among a group of people in the audience. The reliability of the complaining witness's identification testimony concerning defendant was never sufficiently cast into doubt. The witness's out-of-court identification was spontaneous and in no way tainted by police action. Moreover, the witness's in-court identification was based on his ability to view defendant for several minutes and in good lighting during the robbery and flight therefrom from a short distance away. (See, People v Perez, 139 A.D.2d 460 [1st Dept 1988], affd 74 N.Y.2d 637.)
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.