People v. CusimanoPeople v. Cusimano
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant‘s omnibus motion which was to suppress lineup identification evidence (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Arroyo, 38 AD3d 792, 793 [2007]). Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, he was not the only one in the lineup wearing a black T-shirt. Moreover, the defendant‘s clothing did not figure prominently in the complainant‘s description of him, and there was no testimony adduced at the Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]) that the complainant relied on clothing in identifying the defendant in the lineup (see People v Tinnen, 238 AD2d 615, 616 [1997]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt of robbery in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Andolina, 23 AD3d 573 [2005]; People v Cannon, 1 AD3d 606 [2003]; People v Brown, 309 AD2d 871 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.