Opinion
April 1, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kay, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record supports the hearing court's conclusion that the pretrial lineup was not suggestive in any way. While the fillers used in a lineup must be sufficiently similar to the defendant so that no characteristic or visual clue would orient the viewer toward the defendant as a perpetrator of the crimes charged ( see, People v. Lundquist, 151 A.D.2d 505, 506), there is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be accompanied by individuals nearly identical in appearance ( see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v. Rotunno, 159 A.D.2d 601; People v. Diaz, 138 A.D.2d 728). Examination of the lineup photograph reveals that the defendant and the fillers were sufficiently similar in age, weight, build, hairstyle, facial hair, and skin tone ( see, People v. Phillips, 145 A.D.2d 656). The defendant's facial injuries did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive ( see, People v. Ruiz, 162 A.D.2d 637; People v. Phillips, supra; People v. Williams, 118 A.D.2d 610).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.