Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On April 3, 1985 the complainant was raped in Wyandanch, Suffolk County. At a social club two weeks later she recognized a man, later identified as the defendant, as the perpetrator of the crime. She contacted the police and advised them that the defendant could be found in the club. The police apprehended the defendant in the social club. As he stood at the entrance of the social club in the presence of several police officers the complainant identified him as the perpetrator. Following a Wade hearing, the hearing court denied suppression of the identification testimony. On appeal, the defendant argues that the identification testimony should have been suppressed as the product of an impermissibly suggestive showup procedure.
In our opinion, the hearing court properly denied suppression. The complainant's viewing of the defendant in front of the social club was in the nature of a confirmation, not an identification (see, People v. Walker, 127 A.D.2d 868; People v. Whitaker, 126 A.D.2d 688). Thus, the issue of suggestiveness was not a relevant consideration (see, People v. Fleming, 109 A.D.2d 848).
We further find the sentence of from 3 to 9 years' imprisonment imposed upon the defendant's conviction of a class B violent felony offense to be a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion and we decline to substitute our discretion for that of the trial court. The sentence imposed was the result of a negotiated plea agreement which substantially reduced the defendant's sentencing exposure. Therefore, he cannot now complain that the sentence was unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v. Carbone, 117 A.D.2d 612, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 881; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.