Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the photo array identification procedure was unduly suggestive is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed at the Wade hearing ( see United States v Wade, 388 US 218) to raise the specific grounds upon which he now challenges the procedure ( see CPL 470.05; People v Warren, 50 AD3d 706). In any event, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the various persons depicted in the computer-generated photo array were sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant such that the pretrial identification procedure was not unduly suggestive ( see People v Howard, 50 AD3d 823; People v Ragunauth, 24 AD3d 472). Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the admission of testimony at trial regarding the photo array identification procedure did not deny him a fair trial since defense counsel opened the door to the issue as a trial tactic during his opening statement ( see People v Vasquez, 33 AD3d 636; People v Norris, 5 AD3d 796; People v Martinez, 1 AD3d 611).
The defendant's claim that the People violated their disclosure obligations under Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83) is based on factual assertions outside the record and, thus, is not reviewable on this appeal ( see People v Purdie, 50 AD3d 1065; People v Williams, 43 AD3d 729).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.