DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress identification testimony. One of the photographic arrays presented to the complaining witnesses was apparently lost sometime after trial, and the photographs of the lineup furnished to the appellant's counsel were of poor quality. These facts do not give rise to the inference that the photographic array and lineup were suggestive, since the hearing court had the opportunity to view the original photographs and determined that they were not unduly suggestive (see People v. Robert, 184 A.D.2d 597, 598-599; People v. Gonzalez, 168 A.D.2d 283).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.