Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the hearing court was correct in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the lineup identifications which the defendant contends were suggestive. We note that lineup identification stand-ins do not have to be identical in physical characteristics to the defendant but only reasonably similar (see, People v. Castillo, 131 A.D.2d 495; People v. Gairy, 116 A.D.2d 733). Although the stand-ins were substantially taller than the defendant, this was effectively hidden by the fact that all participants were seated and had sheets and smocks covering their bodies.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction. 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).
We find that, upon remittitur, the hearing court correctly denied the defendant's speedy trial motion.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in the defendant's original pro se brief, and supplemental pro se brief and the propriety of his sentence, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.