Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, arguing that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress a lineup identification because there was no photograph of the lineup and because the lineup was inherently suggestive due to the fact that defendant was the only participant with dreadlocks. Although the failure to preserve a photograph of the lineup gave rise to a presumption of suggestiveness (see, People v Johnson, 106 A.D.2d 469; People v English, 75 A.D.2d 981), the People successfully rebutted that presumption through testimony detailing the physical description of the participants and by producing three of the four participants at the Wade hearing. Defendant's further argument that the lineup was inherently suggestive because he was the only participant with dreadlocks lacks merit (see, People v Diaz, 138 A.D.2d 728, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 858). Defendant's reliance on People v Moore ( 143 A.D.2d 1056) is misplaced because there defendant's hairstyle "figured prominently" in the witness's description of him whereas in this record there is no such proof.
We have examined defendant's remaining arguments on appeal and find them lacking in merit.