Opinion
July 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kay, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the fact that he was in handcuffs during the showups, which were conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime, does not require suppression of the identification testimony relating to the showups (see, People v. Carney, 212 A.D.2d 721; People v. Wilson, 201 A.D.2d 271; People v. McKenzie, 220 A.D.2d 228).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.