Opinion
June 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.).
Defendant's claim that testimony by police witnesses constituted improper bolstering of the eyewitness's testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the challenged testimony did not constitute inferential bolstering (see, People v. Parris, 247 A.D.2d 221), and that, in any event, its admission was harmless in view of the strength of the identification testimony (People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.