Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the photographic array was not impermissibly suggestive since the array of photographs depicted men sufficiently similar in appearance so that no characteristic or visual clue would have caused the viewer to select the defendant's photograph (see, Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384; People v. Lundquist, 151 A.D.2d 505; People v. Raines, 135 A.D.2d 842; People v. Jones, 125 A.D.2d 333).
The defendant's contention that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Mateo, 144 A.D.2d 388). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, given the fact that the sentence was part of a negotiated plea (see, People v. Kimble, 153 A.D.2d 591) and was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances of this case (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.