Opinion
June 4, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was identified in an unduly-suggestive identification procedure in which only he exhibited a prominent facial scar. We disagree. While it is true that the defendant alone had a facial scar, from the testimony and photographic evidence concerning the lineup, it appears that the defendant was positioned in such a manner that his scar was not visible and that it played no part in the resulting identification ( see, People v. Thomas, 223 A.D.2d 610; People v. Rosado, 222 A.D.2d 617; People v. Neptune, 193 A.D.2d 703; People v. Williams, 118 A.D.2d 610). We further note that the defendant was also identified at trial by two other witnesses, neither of whom observed the lineup ( see, People v. Medina, 208 A.D.2d 771; People v. Jackson, 167 A.D.2d 420).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Miller, J. P., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.