Opinion
October 5, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive. There is no requirement that lineup stand-ins be identical in physical characteristics to the defendant. They must only be reasonably similar in appearance ( see, People v. Harris, 187 A.D.2d 530). Although some of the stand-ins were taller, their height was effectively concealed by the fact that the participants in the lineup were seated ( see, People v. Jackson, 151 A.D.2d 694).
The defendant's contention that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Three eyewitnesses were able to see the defendant during the commission of the crime, subsequently identified the defendant at a lineup, and identified the defendant at trial. 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 ( see, CPL 470.15).
The sentence imposed is not excessive ( People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.