Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly used peremptory challenges to exclude prospective black jurors (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79). However, having examined the circumstances here, we agree with the trial court that the defendant failed to establish any evidence of systematic exclusion. The court discerned nothing in the prosecutor's questions and remarks during voir dire to suggest a discriminatory purpose (see, Batson v. Kentucky, supra, at 96) and noted that three black jurors had been seated in the first round of jury selection and ultimately heard the case.
We also find that the showup identification was proper (see, People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1024). Furthermore, there was an independent basis for the complainant's in-court identification as he observed the defendant in a well-lit subway car during the perpetration of these crimes (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Rivera, 108 A.D.2d 935).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The sentence imposed was not excessive, and there is no basis in the record for modification (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.