Opinion
April 28, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).
Defendant stands convicted of shooting a store employee to death during a supermarket robbery. Defendant's argument that it was reversible error to permit one of the two store employees who witnessed the shooting but was unable to identify defendant's picture in a photo array to identify him in court is not preserved for review, no objection having been made to the in-court identification (CPL 470.05). In any event, the argument is without merit, since the witness' prior inability to identify defendant from a photograph was relevant to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony (People v Cruz, 167 A.D.2d 306, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 959). Contrary to defendant's pro se claim, this testimony, along with that of the store manager, fingerprint expert, and medical examiner, was sufficient as a matter of law to support the jury's finding that it was defendant who fired a gun into the victim's head at close range (see, People v Adams, 165 A.D.2d 760, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 983). We have considered defendant's remaining pro se claims raised in a supplemental brief and find them to be both unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.