Opinion
April 10, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record before the hearing court establishes that no suggestive police conduct occurred with regard to any of the identification procedures. In addition, the photo array shown to one of the complainants depicted individuals with facial characteristics sufficiently similar to the defendant's to obviate any "substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification" (Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384; People v. Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611, 612). Consequently, suppression of the complainant's in-court identification testimony was properly denied (see, People v. Rahming, 26 N.Y.2d 411, 416).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt. While the People's case depended exclusively on the testimony of one of the complainants, if believed by the jury, this evidence sufficed (see, People v Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 47). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
We do not find that the prosecutor's summation deprived the defendant of a fair trial, particularly in view of the court's proper and complete identification charge which thoroughly apprised the jury of the correct rules to be applied (see, People v. Vera, 94 A.D.2d 728, 729).
The contentions raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to address them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.