Judgment affirmed.
The record indicates that the trial court properly balanced the probative value of permitting the defendant to be cross-examined concerning a prior manslaughter conviction against its prejudicial effect (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241). Accordingly, its ruling will not be disturbed (see, People v Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882).
Further, the defendant's contention that the identification procedures utilized by the police in the instant case were improper is without merit. Moreover, there was clearly an independent basis for the complainant's in-court identification of the defendant since the complainant had ample opportunity to observe and speak with him before and during the robbery (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Russo, 109 A.D.2d 855).
The trial court properly admitted into evidence the gun allegedly used during the instant robbery which was recovered from the defendant upon his arrest. The weapon was pertinent to an element of the robbery charge (see, Penal Law § 160.15) and was sufficiently probative of the instant crime to be admissible (see, People v Allweiss,, 48 N.Y.2d 40; People v Condon, 26 N.Y.2d 139; People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's summation did not deprive him of a fair trial (see, e.g., People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Jones, 89 A.D.2d 875). Finally, under the circumstances, the People presented ample evidence to satisfy their burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v Joyiens, 39 N.Y.2d 197). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.