ORDERED that the judgment and amended sentence are affirmed.
The defendant argues that the photo array identification of him by a witness should have been suppressed on the ground that it was suggestive. Specifically, the defendant claims that he was visibly younger than the other men in the photo array.
A photographic display is suggestive where some characteristic of one picture draws the viewer's attention to it, indicating that the police have made a particular selection (see People v. Cherry, 150 A.D.2d 475; People v. Dubois, 140 A.D.2d 619, 622). An examination of the eight-picture array employed in this case demonstrates that it was not suggestive. The defendant's appearance and pose did not differ greatly from those of the men in the other photographs. The men, including the defendant, were close in age, had similar hairstyles, skin tones, and facial characteristics (see People v. Robert, 184 A.D.2d 597; People v. Floyd, 173 A.D.2d 211).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.