Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, it was not improper to place the defendant in a prearraignment lineup despite his representation by an attorney in connection with the other unrelated charges pending at the time of his arrest. It should be noted that, although not required to do so, the attorney was specifically apprised of the impending lineup and expressly declined to attend (see, People v Hawkins, 55 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 459 U.S. 846; People v Petillo, 137 A.D.2d 843).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for our review and, in any event, without merit. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.