Opinion
May 31, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no basis to disturb the determination of the hearing court that neither the photographic nor lineup identification was the result of unduly suggestive procedures (see, People v Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 916; People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759). In addition, the court properly found that the testimony adduced at the hearing established that the victim had an independent basis for the in-court identification based upon his close scrutiny of the defendant during the commission of the crime (see, People v Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v Friday, 114 A.D.2d 970; People v Hall, 81 A.D.2d 644).
The defendant failed to preserve his claims of prosecutorial misconduct on summation for appellate review and we find that they do not warrant reversal as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.05; 470.15 [6] [a]). The prosecutor's comments regarding the credibility of the chief prosecution witness were in direct response to defense counsel's comments questioning the integrity of that witness (see, People v Hayes, 116 A.D.2d 737, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 884; People v Gilmore, 106 A.D.2d 399, 401). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.