Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), the proof was sufficient to establish defendant's entry into the victim's apartment. Under Penal Law § 140.00 (5), the element of entry is established "when a person intrudes within a building, no matter how slightly, with any part of his or her body" (People v King, 61 N.Y.2d 550, 555; see also, People v Fraticelli, 172 A.D.2d 622, 623, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 995; People v Bright, 162 A.D.2d 212, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 938).
We reject defendant's contention that the photo array shown to the victim was impermissibly suggestive. The photographs portray men with similar physical features. The fact that defendant's photograph has a slightly lighter background than the others does not support the conclusion that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive (see, People v Floyd, 173 A.D.2d 211, 212, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 966; People v Emmons, 123 A.D.2d 475, 476, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 827).