Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that both the photo array and lineup were impermissibly suggestive, in that they drew the witnesses' attention to him as the lightest-skinned male portrayed, is without merit. It is well settled that the law does not require that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance (People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 336, cert denied ___ US ___, 111 S Ct 99; People v Dobbins, 155 A.D.2d 551, 552). The hearing court properly determined that the difference in skin tone of the fill-ins, when considered in conjunction with their similarity of age and facial features, was not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that the defendant would be singled out for identification. We note that any potential suggestiveness would not have rendered the identification testimony of the complaining witnesses unreliable in this case since they clearly had strong independent sources upon which to make their in-court identification (see, People v Clark, 155 A.D.2d 548, 549).
By pleading guilty, the defendant waived his right to challenge the court's adverse Sandoval ruling (People v Green, 162 A.D.2d 708; People v Marinelli, 148 A.D.2d 550; People v Johnson, 141 A.D.2d 848).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.