Opinion
May 13, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly declined to suppress the complainant's proposed identification testimony. Contrary to the defendant's claim, the lineup procedure was not "unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification" (Stovall v Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302) because he was one of only two Pakistanis in the lineup, and he was taller than the other Pakistani. There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied ___ US ___, 111 S Ct 99; People v Rotunno, 159 A.D.2d 601). Although the other participants in the lineup were of Hispanic origin, they were similar in appearance to the defendant since each had a dark skin tone and dark brown hair. Moreover, although the complainant testified that she viewed the lineup participants standing, as well as sitting, she could not recall if the defendant appeared to be taller than the other participants (see, People v Quick, 158 A.D.2d 625). In any event, any error that may have occurred by the admission of the complainant's testimony concerning the lineup was harmless. The complainant testified that she had an unobstructed view of the defendant at close range during the course of the incident, which took place over a period of 20 to 25 minutes. Additionally, about one month after the incident, the complainant recognized the defendant in a supermarket, which observation eventually led to his arrest.
We also find that the defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to supplement its charge in the manner he requested on the issue of the identity of the perpetrator (see, People v Beard, 157 A.D.2d 788, 789). "The charge as given adequately covered the issue" (People v Beard, supra, at 789). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.