Opinion
November 16, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Potoker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that it was error to permit the complaining witness to testify at trial as to a lineup identification that she had made of his accomplice, contending that this constituted improper bolstering of her identification testimony. We disagree. The rule against improper bolstering bars other witnesses from testifying to the fact of a complainant's out-of-court identification of a defendant (People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471). At bar, there was no bolstering of the identification by another witness; rather it was the complaining witness herself who testified to her own lineup identifications of both the defendant and his accomplice. Such testimony by a witness as to a previous out-of-court, corporeal identification is expressly authorized by statute (CPL 60.30). The cases cited by the defendant, People v. Hines ( 112 A.D.2d 316) and People v Osgood ( 89 A.D.2d 76) deal with testimony concerning out-of-court photographic identifications, not lineup identifications, and are thus inapposite. There is ample support in the record for the hearing court's determination that the out-of-court identification procedures were not unduly suggestive (see, People v. McPherson, 56 N.Y.2d 696).
Finally, we see no basis for disturbing the sentence imposed (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mollen, P.J., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.