Judgment affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, Criminal Term properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the in-court identification by the complainant on the ground of an improper pretrial identification procedure. The use of an array of six photographs, where it was not alleged that the defendant's photograph was distinctive, provided a fair and constitutionally adequate sample for the identification procedure (see, People v. Rolston, 109 A.D.2d 854). The fact that the photograph of more than one perpetrator of the crime was utilized within the array did not render the identification improper.
In addition, there is no constitutional right to a lineup. That the People choose to proceed solely with a photographic identification did not serve to render the in-court identification improper or unfair (see, People v. Dibble, 46 A.D.2d 829).
The other issue raised by the defendant has been examined and found to be meritless. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.