Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly found that the pretrial lineup was not unduly suggestive. There is no requirement that a defendant who participates in a lineup be accompanied by individuals who are nearly identical to him in physical appearance (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Starkey, 222 A.D.2d 536). To the contrary, the fillers in a lineup need only be reasonably similar to the defendant in appearance (see, People v. Pinckney, 220 A.D.2d 539; People v. Sanchez, 217 A.D.2d 598). Here, the detective who conducted the lineup testified that the selected fillers were "close in description" to the defendant, and that at least four of the five fillers had "goatee" beards similar to the defendant's beard. Moreover, a photograph of the lineup, introduced into evidence at the hearing, confirms that the lineup participants were seated to minimize any height disparities (see, People v. Pinckney, supra; People v. Garcia, 215 A.D.2d 584). The record further establishes that the complaining witnesses were seated in separate rooms prior to viewing the lineup, and that they viewed the lineup separately. Under these circumstances, we discern no basis to disturb the hearing court's finding.
We further find that the sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.