Opinion
December 17, 1991
Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.).
Contrary to respondent's contentions, the photo array shown to the complaining witness, who had ample opportunity to observe the defendant, who held a knife to her throat, was not unduly suggestive. There is no requirement that all the participants in a lineup or photo array be identical in appearance. (People v Alton, 169 A.D.2d 529.) Rather, all that is required is that they resemble each other sufficiently so as not to create a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification (People v Simmons, 170 A.D.2d 15, 19). Here, the fact that respondent's photograph showed him with a "flat-top" haircut did not cause him to be singled out of the group, since others pictured had similar hairstyles. And, absent some showing of impermissible suggestiveness, not made here, there is no burden upon the People nor any need, to demonstrate that a source independent of the pretrial identification procedure exists for the witness's in-court identification (People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.