Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record supports the hearing court's conclusion that the pretrial lineup was not suggestive in any way (see, People v Rotunno, 159 A.D.2d 601; People v Diaz, 138 A.D.2d 728). The defendant's claim that discrepancies between his appearance and that of the other lineup participants tainted the lineup is without merit. There is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup be accompanied by individuals nearly identical in appearance to him (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v Diaz, supra, at 728). Moreover, examination of the lineup photograph confirms the hearing testimony that the lineup participants were similar to the defendant in terms of weight, age, complexion, and hairstyle, precluding the likelihood that the defendant was singled out for identification (see, Neil v Biggers, 409 U.S. 188).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.