Opinion
December 7, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the Trial Judge erred by permitting the complainant to "bolster" his testimony by stating that he had received training in observation. "However, this was not impermissible `bolstering', but, rather, was information which the jury could consider in their evaluation of his testimony" (People v Williams, 109 A.D.2d 906, 908).
We have considered the defendant's other claimed errors and find that they are either unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05), or harmless (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.