Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the lineup identification of him. It is well settled that there is no requirement "that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by people nearly identical in appearance" (People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833) and that the constitutional identification procedures will be satisfied "[a]s long as the other individuals in the lineup sufficiently resemble the defendant" (People v Valdez, 204 A.D.2d 369). None of the factors now relied upon by the defendant were of such a nature as to render the lineup suggestive (see, People v Figueroa, 204 A.D.2d 103; People v Baptiste, 201 A.D.2d 659; People v Chalmers, 163 A.D.2d 528).
Furthermore, the prosecutor's cross-examination of defense witness Andrew Chen regarding his failure to timely come forward with exculpatory information was proper pursuant to People v Dawson ( 50 N.Y.2d 311).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.