Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the hearing court properly declined to suppress the lineup and in-court identification testimony of two prosecution witnesses. The defendant argues that the witnesses' viewings of a high school yearbook were unduly suggestive and thus tainted the subsequent lineup procedures. However, the record reveals no evidence that the yearbook displayed the defendant's photograph in an unduly suggestive manner (see, People v Jones, 166 A.D.2d 722; People v Thomas, 147 A.D.2d 510, 512). Also, we discern no undue suggestiveness in the lineup procedures. The lineup participants reasonably resembled the defendant (see, People v Chalmers, 163 A.D.2d 528; People v Stokes, 156 A.D.2d 401; cf., People v Owens, 74 N.Y.2d 677, 678). In any event, the record amply supports the hearing court's finding that the two witnesses had substantial independent sources for their identifications (see, People v Chalmers, supra; People v Callace, 143 A.D.2d 1027; People v Minota, 137 A.D.2d 837, 838; People v Johnson, 129 A.D.2d 739, 740).
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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.