Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
The verdict finding defendant guilty of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45) and petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) is not contrary to the weight of the evidence, and the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The proof establishes that defendant acted as an accomplice ( see, Penal Law § 20.00) in the possession and use of a stolen credit card to purchase a television and VCR ( see, People v. Moye, 275 A.D.2d 887, 888, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 936; People v. Mathis, 147 A.D.2d 851, 854, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1018; People v. Mitchell, 126 A.D.2d 754). Because the evidence of defendant's guilt as an accomplice was both direct and circumstantial, Supreme Court was not required to give a moral certainty charge ( see, People v. DeJesus, 256 A.D.2d 59, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 969; see also, People v. Goncalves, ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided May 2, 2001]). The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress identification testimony. Contrary to defendant's contention, the individuals portrayed in the photo array "resemble each other sufficiently so that there was not a `substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification'" ( People v. Beason, 252 A.D.2d 975, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 980, quoting People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; see, People v. Dread, 245 A.D.2d 1076, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 1007).