Opinion
July 10, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the lineup from which he was identified was impermissibly suggestive. The hearing court found that the lineup consisted of individuals who were reasonably similar in appearance to the defendant (see, People v. Stephens, 143 A.D.2d 692; People v. Gairy, 116 A.D.2d 733), and there was no requirement that the defendant be surrounded by individuals whose physical characteristics were nearly identical to his (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v. Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666). We discern no basis in the record for disturbing the hearing court's determination in this regard.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his current challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence against him (see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.