Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the photo array and pretrial lineup procedure were unduly suggestive. Our review of the photo array and a photograph of the lineup reveals that the participants were sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant so that there was little likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification by particular characteristics (see, People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 335, cert denied 498 U.S. 833; People v. Hoehne, 203 A.D.2d 480; People v Christenson, 188 A.D.2d 659, 660; People v. Robert, 184 A.D.2d 597, 598-599; People v. Henderson, 170 A.D.2d 532, 533; People v McLarin, 157 A.D.2d 747; People v. Dobbins, 155 A.D.2d 551, 552; People v. Bullard, 146 A.D.2d 582, 583). The record further establishes that none of the procedures used in connection with the identification of the defendant were improper. Sullivan, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.