Opinion
November 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the instant crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the complainants, who had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the incident, identified the defendant at a subsequent lineup and in court. In addition, an accomplice testified that the defendant was the perpetrator. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's claim that his lineup was unduly suggestive because the stand-ins were younger and weighed less than him is without merit. There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be accompanied by individuals nearly identical in appearance (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v. Baptiste, 201 A.D.2d 659; People v. Rotunno, 159 A.D.2d 601). An examination of the lineup photograph reveals that the stand-ins were similar to the defendant in terms of hair style, facial hair, skin coloring, and dress. Furthermore, the defendant's age and weight did not single him out for identification (see, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188). Therefore, the hearing court did not err in declining to suppress the eyewitness's lineup identification.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.