STATE v. BRADLEY

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (former § 265.03 [2]), defendant contends that a pretrial identification procedure was unduly suggestive based on the fact that a witness made a confirmatory identification of defendant using a single photograph. Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Miller, 43 AD3d 1381) and, in any event, defendant's contention is without merit. The witness had known defendant for 10 years and had given his name to the police. Thus, "the witness [was] so familiar with the defendant that there [was] `little or no risk' that police suggestion could lead to a misidentification" ( People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 450). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, he was not prejudiced by the pretrial identification procedure used with respect to a second witness inasmuch as that witness did not testify at trial. Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not un-duly harsh or severe.