Opinion
October 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied the branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress testimony concerning the identification of the defendant at the lineup. It is well settled that there is no requirement "that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by people nearly identical [to him] in appearance" (People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). The constitutional proscription against unduly suggestive identification procedures will be satisfied "[a]s long as the other individuals in the lineup sufficiently resemble the defendant" (see, People v Valdez, 204 A.D.2d 369). None of the factors upon which the defendant now relies rendered the lineup unduly 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).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his objections to the prosecutor's summation (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the challenged comments were fair responses to defense counsel's summation or within the bounds of proper rhetorical comment (see, People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179; People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.