Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's argument that the photographic array was rendered unduly suggestive by the presence of height markers behind some of the stand-ins is unpreserved for appellate review ( see generally People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 18). In any event, the test for determining whether a pretrial identification was so unfair as to be violative of due process is whether "`the confrontation . . . was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that [defendant] was denied due process of law'" ( People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, 187, cert denied 396 US 1020, quoting Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293, 301-302). In the case of a photo array, "[t]he general rule is that [it] is deemed to be suggestive when some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer's attention to that picture, indicating that the police have made a particular selection" ( People v Mack, 243 AD2d 731). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, there was nothing in his photograph to indicate that he was shorter than the other participants in the array ( see People v Robert, 184 AD2d 597, 598; People v Jackson, 151 AD2d 694).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 529). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946). Upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, supra).
The defendant's remaining contention has been withdrawn by letter dated July 17, 2006.