Opinion
June 2, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the hearing reveals that the photographic array identification procedure was neither improperly conducted nor unduly suggestive (see, People v Bartholomew, 237 A.D.2d 371; People v. Rivera, 135 A.D.2d 667; People v. Magee, 122 A.D.2d 227). In addition, the record amply supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant agreed to accompany the officers to police headquarters (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Bloomfield, 221 A.D.2d 651).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; see also, People v. Ellis, 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Garcia, 75 N.Y.2d 973). The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Dickens, 88 N.Y.2d 1031; People v Proctor, 79 N.Y.2d 992; People v. Oliver, 63 N.Y.2d 973; People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818).
O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.