Opinion
December 30, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The lineup procedure employed was proper and not "so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that [the defendant] was denied due process of law" (Stovall v Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302). The defendant's argument that the lineup was rendered unnecessarily suggestive by the injuries to his face is without merit (see, People v Williams, 118 A.D.2d 610). All of the other participants in the lineup were approximately the same age, height, weight and build as the defendant and had similar skin tones and hairstyles (see, People v Cunningham, 110 A.D.2d 708, 709). Under the circumstances, the hearing court properly determined that the lineup and the in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant were admissible (People v Gairy, 116 A.D.2d 733). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.