Opinion
November 16, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.).
Defendant consented to admission of a document indicating a prior consistent statement, and thus may not properly seek interest of justice review of such an "`invited error'" (People v Acosta, 180 A.D.2d 505, 509-510, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 827). Additionally, as defendant vigorously cross-examined the witness regarding his mistake in transcription, pointedly suggesting that the mistake was recently brought to the witness' attention by the prosecutor, admission of the document indicating the prior consistent statement on redirect examination was appropriate to rehabilitate the witness' testimony following defendant's "at least implicit assertions of recent fabrication" (People v Boyd, 58 N.Y.2d 1016, 1018).
Defendant's claim of "bad faith" on the part of the prosecutor in questioning the police officer who conducted the lineup is unsupported by the record. Additionally, any bolstering of one identification witness' testimony that may have been created by the officer's testimony was effectively rendered harmless by the trial court's prompt curative actions and the strong identification testimony in this case, making it unlikely that the jury would substitute the officer's testimony for that of the identification witness in question (People v Nunez, 162 A.D.2d 298, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 862).
We have considered defendant's additional claims of error and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Kassal, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.