Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under count four of the indictment, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, our review of the record discloses that, viewed in the totality of circumstances, the procedures employed by the police in conducting the showup of the defendant and his two companions immediately after his arrest and shortly after the commission of the crime were not so conducive to irreparable misidentification as to deny the defendant due process of law (see, People v Smith, 38 N.Y.2d 882, 883; People v Digiosaffatte, 63 A.D.2d 703, 704; see also, People v James, 110 A.D.2d 1037, 1038; People v Thomas, 105 A.D.2d 1098; People v Johnson, 102 A.D.2d 616, 627, 628, lv denied 63 N.Y.2d 776).
The People concede, however, that they failed to establish the operability of a second, light-handled knife as a gravity knife, and, therefore, under count four of the indictment, the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree must be dismissed (see, People v Perez, 123 A.D.2d 721).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.