DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court correctly concluded that the lineup where he was identified was not impermissibly suggestive. There is no requirement that the participants in a lineup be nearly identical in appearance ( see People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833). Despite certain age and weight disparities, the fillers were sufficiently similar to the defendant in appearance so that he was not singled out for identification ( see People v. Poey, 260 A.D.2d 411; People v. Longshore, 249 A.D.2d 565; People v. Pinckney, 220 A.D.2d 539) . Consequently, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the lineup and in-court identification by the eyewitness was properly denied.
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 470.15; People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Moreover, the defendant was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., TOWNES, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.