Judgment affirmed, and case remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to counsel when he was subjected to a showup identification procedure without his attorney being present, even though one of the officers involved in the showup had knowledge of an unrelated criminal matter pending against the defendant (see, People v Hawkins, 55 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 459 U.S. 846; People v Robertson, 109 A.D.2d 806). Further, the defendant was not entitled to suppression of the identification testimony as the showup was not unnecessarily suggestive nor conducive to mistaken identification (see, People v Brnja, 70 A.D.2d 17, affd 50 N.Y.2d 366; see also, People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023; People v Allen, 112 A.D.2d 375; People v Medina, 111 A.D.2d 190).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the record contains evidence sufficient in quantity and quality to support the verdict (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, criminal mischief in the fourth degree is not a lesser included offense of burglary in the third degree (see, People v Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61).
The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive and there is no basis for a modification (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.