Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress the show up identifications made two days after the robberies. We disagree. Since both complainants spontaneously recognized the defendant on the street before notifying the police, the identifications made a few minutes later when the police arrived were merely confirmatory ( see, People v. Bazelias, 220 A.D.2d 443; People v. Coleman, 214 A.D.2d 619; People v. Mack, 203 A.D.2d 131, 132; People v. Sanford, 184 A.D.2d 671).

The defendant's contention that the testimony of the arresting officer constituted improper bolstering in violation of People v. Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471) is unpreserved for appellate review since defense counsel made no objection to this testimony at trial (CPL 470.05; People v. Higgins, 216 A.D.2d 487, 488; People v. White, 210 A.D.2d 271; People v. Tinsley, 159 A.D.2d 602). In any event, any inferential bolstering which may have occurred is harmless since the strong and positive identification testimony in this case precludes any significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error ( see, People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v. Padilla, 219 A.D.2d 688, 689; People v. White, supra; People v. Gordillo, 191 A.D.2d 455).

S. Miller, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.