Opinion
August 14, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the hearing court properly concluded that neither the photographic array nor the manner in which it was compiled and displayed to the complainant was impermissibly suggestive (see, e.g., People v. Walker, 215 A.D.2d 606; People v. Hoehne, 203 A.D.2d 480; People v. Berry, 201 A.D.2d 489; People v. Simmonds, 182 A.D.2d 650; People v. Burris, 171 A.D.2d 668). Additionally, the court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Kelland, 208 A.D.2d 954; People v Sullivan, 201 A.D.2d 518). Further, the court's ruling that the police had obtained consent before searching the defendant's residence is supported by the record (see, People v. Gonzalez, 39 N.Y.2d 122; People v. Soto, 199 A.D.2d 440; People v. Rivas, 182 A.D.2d 722).
The trial court properly denied the defendant's request to submit to the jury the crime of attempted rape in the first degree as a lesser included offense of rape in the first degree. The record establishes that there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would have permitted the jury to conclude that the defendant committed the lesser crime but not the greater (see, CPL 300.50; People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.