Opinion
May 15, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, neither the photographic array nor the lineup was unduly suggestive (see, People v Mason, 123 A.D.2d 720). There is no requirement that a defendant who participates in a lineup be accompanied by individuals nearly identical to him in physical appearance (see, People v Davis, 212 A.D.2d 724; People v Brito, 179 A.D.2d 666). The participants of the lineup in this case were reasonably similar in appearance to the defendant, and the police took reasonable steps to conceal the defendant's dreadlocks by requiring that all of the lineup participants, including the defendant, wear hats to cover their hair (see, People v Davis, supra; People v Meatley, 162 A.D.2d 721).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.