Judgment affirmed.
Neither of the individuals who the defendant claims could have been improperly influenced by the photographic identification procedure subsequently made a lineup identification of the defendant. Consequently, the defendant's claim that the photographic identification procedure tainted the subsequent lineup identifications is without merit. Similarly, the defendant's argument that the lineup was rendered unnecessarily suggestive by his swollen left eye contrasting with the normal eyes of the other individuals in the lineup is erroneous. The lineup procedure employed was proper in that it was not so "`unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that [defendant] was denied due process of law'" (People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 187, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020, quoting from Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301-302; People v Veal, 106 A.D.2d 418, 419).
By failing to specifically raise either at the hearings or at trial the issue of whether the lineup identifications should be suppressed on the ground that they were the tainted fruit of an arrest of the defendant effected in his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances (see, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573), the defendant has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see, People v Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 887; People v. Jennings, 94 A.D.2d 802). In any event, the arrest of the defendant by Officer Billups was proper and any taint which may have resulted from the prior independent arrest by Detective Donovan was clearly purged (see, People v Pleasant, 54 N.Y.2d 972, 974, cert denied 455 U.S. 924). Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.