MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment rendered upon a jury verdict convicting him of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03), and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1], [4]), arising from the shooting death of the victim in June 1997. Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court was not required pursuant to People v. Rodriguez ( 79 N.Y.2d 445) to permit him to call the witness who would identify him at trial during the Wade hearing. The purpose of a Rodriguez hearing is to establish that an identification is confirmatory when the court denies a request for a Wade hearing on that basis ( see id. at 449-450). Where the court conducts a Wade hearing, there is no requirement that a Rodriguez hearing also be conducted ( see People v. Goico, 303 A.D.2d 1030, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 581). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive because of the differing skin tones of the subjects depicted in the photo array ( see People v. Pointer, 253 A.D.2d 500, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 1037; People v. Miller [Philip], 199 A.D.2d 422, 423, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 807; see also People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). In any event, the subjects depicted in the photo array are sufficiently similar in appearance so that the viewer's attention is not drawn to any one photograph in such as a way as to indicate that the police were urging a particular selection ( see People v. Walker, 2 A.D.3d 1358; People v. Martinez, 298 A.D.2d 897, 897-898, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 769, cert denied 538 US 963, 123 S Ct 1752, reh denied 539 US 911, 123 So. Ct 2266; see also Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d at 336). Finally, to the extent that the prosecutor's comments on summation were improper and that the harm resulting therefrom was not alleviated by the court's curative remarks ( see People v. Madore, 289 A.D.2d 986, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 757), they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. Jenkins, 302 A.D.2d 978, 979, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 562; People v. Cohen, 302 A.D.2d 904, 905).