Opinion
December 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the testimony of the photographic identification should have been suppressed as unduly suggestive, since the background of his photograph was much lighter than the other photographs in the array. This contention is without merit since it cannot be said that this difference tainted the photographic array ( see, People v. Guzman, 220 A.D.2d 614, 615; People v. Robert, 184 A.D.2d 597; Matter of Christopher E., 163 A.D.2d 385; People v. Cherry, 150 A.D.2d 475, 476; People v. Emmons, 123 A.D.2d 475). In any event, assuming arguendo that the photographic identification was unduly suggestive, the in-court identification of the defendant by the witnesses had an independent source ( see, Matter of Christopher E., supra; People v. Caccamise, 198 A.D.2d 537; People v. Clark, 155 A.D.2d 548, 549).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. White, 192 A.D.2d 736, 737; People v. Rios, 180 A.D.2d 696), and, in any event, is without merit.
Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.