DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
That branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony motion was properly denied. Upon our review of the photographic array, we agree with the hearing court's finding that the difference between the defendant's hairstyle and the hairstyles of the fillers was insignificant and did not call undue attention to the defendant ( see People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327; People v. Saunders, 306 A.D.2d 502; People v. Wright, 297 A.D.2d 391).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.20).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.