Opinion
June 17, 1996
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the photographic array was unduly suggestive. "There is no requirement that all the participants in a * * * photo array be identical in appearance" (Matter of Raymond A., 178 A.D.2d 288, 289; see also, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v. Hoehne, 203 A.D.2d 480). In any event, the photographic array from which the witnesses selected the defendant consisted of males who were similar in appearance and age to the defendant (see, People v. Landor, 92 A.D.2d 625). The record further establishes that none of the other procedures used in connection with the identification of the defendant were improper.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.