Opinion
November 4, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police officers who purchased drugs from him were properly permitted to identify him in court. Even assuming arguendo that the photographic identification procedure employed by the police several days after the sale was suggestive, both officers possessed an independent source supporting their in-court identification of the defendant. They both viewed the defendant's face in daylight at close range and for several minutes during the course of the two sales of a controlled substance, and were able to describe the defendant's appearance on the day of the sale in significant detail. Given this independent source, their in-court identification testimony was proper (see, People v. Green, 160 A.D.2d 725; People v. Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173).
The prosecutor's comment during summation which suggested that an acquittal was tantamount to telling the police officers that they "committed perjury" was improper (see, People v. Farmer, 122 A.D.2d 801, 803; People v. Williams, 112 A.D.2d 177). We find, however, that the court's prompt curative instruction and its additional instruction directing the jury to completely disregard the comment adequately dispelled any prejudice which might have otherwise affected the verdict (see, People v. Ellis, 157 A.D.2d 797; People v. Ervin, 142 A.D.2d 592).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.