Opinion
July 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.).
Defendant's application to introduce expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification was properly denied. Even assuming that such testimony may, in some circumstances, be admissible in the court's discretion ( see, People v. Mooney, 76 N.Y.2d 827), this is clearly not such a case, defendant having made no showing that the psychologist's expertise extended to pre-planned, prompt identifications by trained undercover police. "[T]he expert testimony on this issue cannot be connected with any facts of this case." ( United States v. Downing, 609 F. Supp. 784, 792, affd 780 F.2d 1017.)
Defendant was not entitled to a missing witness charge with respect to various officers, not present at the sale, whose testimony would have been cumulative at best ( People v. Macana, 84 N.Y.2d 173, 180).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.