Opinion
March 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court's pretrial Sandoval ruling (People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about the underlying facts of a youthful offender adjudication (see, People v Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 264, cert denied 423 U.S. 861), did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion. That the defendant had previously used a handgun during a robbery indicates his willingness to place his own interests above those of society (see, e.g., People v Sandoval, supra, at 377; People v Gonzalez, 111 A.D.2d 870).
We reject the defendant's contention that the lineup was unduly suggestive because only one of fillers had a so-called "Jersey" haircut. There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by people nearly identical in appearance (see, People v Hernandez, 164 A.D.2d 920; People v Mattocks, 133 A.D.2d 89; People v Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611). We have examined photographs of the lineup and conclude that all the participants were similar enough in appearance that there did not exist a substantial likelihood of misidentification (see, People v Mattocks, supra; People v Rodriguez, supra; cf., People v Moore, 143 A.D.2d 1056). We also reject the defendant's contention that the lineup identifications should have been suppressed based on the defendant's claim that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. The uncontroverted evidence established that the arresting officers knew that a crime had been committed, that the defendant fit the description of the perpetrator, that he had been warned of the police presence during their investigation, and that he had fled when the police eventually tried to apprehend him. Based on the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting officers, we conclude that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254; People v Rivera, 142 A.D.2d 742).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.