Opinion
September 29, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record supports the determination of the hearing court that the photo array and pretrial lineup were not suggestive. 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 towards 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 photo array and the lineup photograph confirms the hearing testimony that the fillers were sufficiently similar to the defendant in age, weight and build, skin tone, hair style, and dress ( see, People v. Phillips, 145 A.D.2d 656).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.