Opinion
April 3, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in prospectively precluding the testimony of a defense investigator, concerning a prior inconsistent statement allegedly made by a prosecution witness, with respect to her ability to identify the defendant (see, People v. Morales, 125 A.D.2d 605; People v. Strawder, 106 A.D.2d 672; People v. Hill, 52 A.D.2d 609).
We find, however, that the trial court's error in this regard was harmless in view of the fact that the defendant was observed by two police officers in the process of committing the crimes of which he now stands convicted. Since there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the defense investigator had been permitted to testify, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed (see, People v. Daly, 98 A.D.2d 803, affd 64 N.Y.2d 970; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.