Opinion
May 2, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
"The issue involved in ascertaining the validity of a lineup identification concerns `undue suggestiveness' which is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the lineup" (People v. Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611, 612). "There is no requirement * * * that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by people nearly identical in appearance" (People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Chalmers, 163 A.D.2d 528). As long as the other individuals in the lineup sufficiently resemble the defendant, the constitutional proscription against unduly suggestive identification procedures will be satisfied (see, People v. Chalmers, supra, at 528).
Upon our review of the lineup photographs and the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing, we find that the hearing court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the lineup identifications of him by various witnesses (see, People v. Chalmers, supra). The witnesses' attention was not drawn to the defendant by virtue of the fact that he was the only person in the lineup wearing shorts and unlaced sneakers. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.