Opinion
April 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold J. Rothwax, J.).
Giving proper deference to the findings of the hearing court (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761) we agree that the difference in skin tones between defendant and some of the fill-ins, "when considered together with the similarity of age, height and body type of all the fill-ins was not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification", and that the lineup, therefore, was not unduly suggestive (People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336). Nor is there merit to defendant's argument that photographs showing the victim's corpse should have been excluded from evidence as inflammatory, since the photographs in question were relevant to material issues at trial (People v Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369-370, cert denied 416 U.S. 905), and served to elucidate and corroborate other evidence bearing on these issues (People v Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 836).
We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.