Opinion
December 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Solomon Katz, J., Edward M. Davidowitz, J.
Defendant's contention that the trial court erred by belatedly ruling, after-the-fact, that defendant's statement was admissible for impeachment purposes, is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it without merit. There was no evidence or claim that the statement was coerced, and thus inadmissible for impeachment purposes (Mincey v Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 396-402). Nor has defendant claimed that he was prejudiced in any way by the alleged untimeliness of the trial court's ruling.
When defendant elicited the fact of a photo identification the People were properly permitted to elicit the photo identification procedures to correct the jury's potential misimpression that the police had unfairly shown the victim a single photo (People v Brown, 62 A.D.2d 715, 723-724, affd 48 N.Y.2d 921).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.