Opinion
October 17, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There was a sufficient degree of resemblance between the defendant and the five other participants in the lineup so as not to render likely that there would be a mistaken identification of the defendant as a result of undue suggestiveness (People v Accoo, 126 A.D.2d 730; accord, People v Williams, 131 A.D.2d 617, 618). Under the circumstances, the hearing court properly determined that the lineup and the in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant, who was an off-duty police officer, were admissible (see, People v Gairy, 116 A.D.2d 733). Moreover, the complainant's unobstructed viewing of the defendant during the course of the robbery provided an independent basis for his in-court identification (see, People v Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82, 84).
By failing to make a motion in the Supreme Court to withdraw his plea, the defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Santiago, 100 A.D.2d 857). Nor is reversal warranted in the interest of justice inasmuch as the plea allocution satisfied the basic requirements of People v Harris ( 61 N.Y.2d 9) and there is no suggestion in the record that the plea was improvident or baseless (see, People v Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 350, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 U.S. 1067; People v Dixon, 119 A.D.2d 831; People v Langhorn, 119 A.D.2d 844, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 758).
We have reviewed the issues raised by the defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.