Opinion
June 5, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the lineup in this case was unduly suggestive. It is well settled that, while the lineup participants should have the same general physical characteristics as the defendant, there is no requirement that they be nearly identical in appearance to the defendant (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 883; People v. Baptiste, 201 A.D.2d 659; People v. Simmons, 197 A.D.2d 648; People v. Christenson, 188 A.D.2d 659; People v Simmonds, 182 A.D.2d 650; People v. Mattocks, 133 A.D.2d 89). An examination of the photographs of the lineup in this case reveals that all of the participants were similar in appearance to the defendant (see, People v. Baptiste, supra; People v. Mattocks, supra). Moreover, because all of the lineup participants were seated, any differences in their heights were minimized (see, People v. Johnson, 172 A.D.2d 774).
The defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence adduced at the trial to establish that he was one of the perpetrators of the crimes of which he was convicted. The defendant failed to raise this issue before the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, it is well-settled that resolution of issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Pizzuto, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.