Opinion
November 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Considering, as we must, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the lineup identification (see, People v Lundquist, 151 A.D.2d 505; People v Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611), we find that the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive. We note that lineup stand-ins do not have to be identical in physical characteristics to the defendant but need only be reasonably similar in appearance (see, People v Lundquist, supra). Although some of the stand-ins were taller and heavier than the defendant, this was effectively hidden by the fact that all of the participants were seated, minimizing the disparities in stature (see, People v Jackson, 151 A.D.2d 694).
Equally without merit is the defendant's contention that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of a robbery. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find, based upon the complainant's ability to see the defendant prior to the commission of the robbery and his subsequent lineup identification, coupled with his identification of the defendant at trial, that the evidence 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 (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's claim that the testimony of the arresting officer improperly bolstered the complainant's out-of-court identification of the defendant in violation of People v Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471) is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.