Majority
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]), defendant contends that County Court erred in precluding certain questioning at the Wade hearing and in ultimately ruling that the photo array was not unduly suggestive; that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The court’s preclusion of certain questioning at the Wade hearing was proper, and the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress certain identification evidence. The six subjects in the photo array were of similar age and appearance (see, People v Owens, 275 AD2d 905 , lv denied 95 NY2d 937 ; People v Rogers, 245 AD2d 1041 ), and “the viewer’s attention is not drawn to defendant’s photo in such a way as to indicate that the police
Cases cited
- People v. Rogers 245 AD2d 1041 p. 905
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 906
- People v. Whatts 169 AD2d 846 at 847 p. 906
- People v. Henry 95 NY2d 563 p. 906
- People v. Benevento 91 NY2d 708 at 714-715 p. 906
- People v. Baldi 54 NY2d 137 at 147 p. 906