Opinion
November 17, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the identification testimony. The hearing evidence established that the eyewitness knew the defendant. Therefore, the showup identification, made shortly after the crime, was merely a confirmatory identification, rendering its suggestiveness irrelevant ( see, People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; People v. Garcia, 216 A.D.2d 412).
We further reject the defendant's claim that the subsequent lineup was faulty because the other individuals did not resemble him. There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be accompanied by individuals nearly identical in physical appearance ( see, People v. Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666) and the record reveals that the lineup stand-ins were reasonably similar in appearance to the defendant.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, lacking in merit, or do not warrant reversal.
Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.