Opinion
December 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the corporeal identification procedure was unduly suggestive because 4 out of the 5 persons selected to stand in the lineup had darker skin than he did, is without merit. The evidence supports the hearing court's conclusion that the lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive, given the totality of the circumstances surrounding the lineup (see, People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738; People v. Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82). There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup must be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance (see, People v. Dobbins, 155 A.D.2d 551; People v. Mattocks, 133 A.D.2d 89). An examination of the lineup photographs indicates that all of the participants were similar in appearance to the defendant. Specifically, they all had similar haircuts, no facial hair, and comparatively similar skin color.
We find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by limiting cross-examination of prosecution witnesses concerning the drug operation (see, People v. Dickman, 42 N.Y.2d 294; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). The defense counsel was still able to thoroughly cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses about their drug selling business and drug involvement. Objection to questions concerning the amount of money and the number of customers obtained through the drug operation were properly sustained since responses to these questions would have violated the witnesses' privilege against self-incrimination (see, Matter of Anonymous Attorneys, 41 N.Y.2d 506).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to consider them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Vidal, 26 N.Y.2d 249). Kooper, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.