Filed Date: 12/30/2002
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
—Appeal by the de
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographic identification of the defendant by an undercover police officer was not unduly suggestive (see People v Blacknall, 216 AD2d 404).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.