Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the photographic array from which the complainant identified the defendant was not unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; see also, People v. Jackson, 211 A.D.2d 644). Although the photograph of the defendant was the most clearly focused of the six photographs which comprised the photographic array, there was nothing distinctive about the depiction of the defendant himself that rendered the array unduly suggestive ( see, People v. Robert, 184 A.D.2d 597; see also, People v. Tedesco, 143 A.D.2d 155), since each of the men depicted had similar facial characteristics and facial hair.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022).
Miller, J.P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.