Opinion
March 21, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that evidence of the lineup identification should have been suppressed because there was a 2- to 3-inch variation in the height of the lineup participants. While it is well established that the participants in a lineup should have the same general physical characteristics (see, Foster v California, 394 U.S. 440), there is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance (see, People v. Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611). In view of the fact that all of the lineup participants were of similar age, skin tone, build, weight, hairstyle and dress as the defendant, the slight variation in their height did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive or conducive to irreparable mistaken identification (see, Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293; People v. Brown, 121 A.D.2d 460, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 767). Therefore, suppression of evidence of the lineup identification was properly denied.
In addition, we find no basis in the record for finding that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the maximum sentence imposed or that this court should exercise its discretion by reducing the sentence (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.