People v. Pointer

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhart, J.), rendered August 8, 1995, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that a defendant in a lineup need not be surrounded by individuals nearly identical in appearance (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327 , cert denied 498 US 833 ; People v Gelzer, 224 AD2d 443 ; People v Baptiste, 201 AD2d 659 ). To the contrary, the fillers in a lineup need only be reasonably similar to the defendant in appearance (see, People v Gelzer, supra; People v Pinckney, 220 AD2d 539 ). Skin tone is only one of the factors to be considered in deciding “reasonable similarity” (People v Miller, 199 AD2d 422 , 423) and differences in skin tone alone will not render a lineup unduly suggestive (see, People v Miller, supra; People v Chipp, supra; People v Henderson, 170 AD2d 532 ). As the defendant failed to demonstrate that there was a substantial likelihood of misidentification, there is no basis to disturb the hearing court’s determination that the lineup procedure was not tainted by suggestiveness (see, People v Singleton, 222 AD2d 719 ; People v Jacobi, 159 AD2d 308 ).

The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.