THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ERCREY GRANGER, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
794 NYS2d 914
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals who are nearly identical to him in appearance (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Green, 14 AD3d 578 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 831 [2005]; People v Richards, 2 AD3d 883 [2003]). Here, the participants in the lineups were similar to the defendant in appearance, and any minor differences between them did not render the lineups impermissibly suggestive or create a substantial likelihood of misidentification (see People v Green, supra; People v Villacreses, 12 AD3d 624, 625 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 768 [2005]; People v Richards, supra; People v Nieves, 183 AD2d 854, 856 [1992]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The remaining contentions raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Fisher, JJ., concur.
