Opinion
October 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.).
We reject defendant's contention that the identification testimony should have been suppressed as unduly suggestive, the showup having taken place in close proximity to the crime scene within minutes of its commission (see, People v Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541; People v Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523).
Defendant's contention that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of legitimate advocacy during summation, depriving him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05), and we decline to reach it. Were we to consider the issue in the interest of justice, we would find it to be without merit (see, People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912; People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.