DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt (see, CPL 470.05[2];People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10 ; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant' s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. A photographic array is suggestive when some characteristic of an individual's picture draws the viewer's attention to that picture indicating that the police have made a particular selection. Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no indication that the manner in which the photographs were displayed was unduly suggestive or that the defendant differed significantly from the photograph fillers (see, Matter of James H., 34 N.Y.2d 814 ; People v. Rawlings, 159 A.D.2d 655 ).
While lineup participants should have the same general physical characteristics as those of the suspect, there is no requirement that a defendant be surrounded by individuals nearly identical to him in appearance (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833 ; People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738, 740-741 ;People v. Folk, 233 A.D.2d 462 ; People v. Christenson, 188 A.D.2d 659 ). Since the lineup participants were similar to the defendant in weight and attire, minor variations in age did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive or conducive to mistaken identification.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
BRACKEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.