Opinion
December 1, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find the defendant's contention that the prosecutor was permitted to bolster the complainant's testimony relating to his identification of the defendant to be without merit. During the questioning of a police officer by the prosecutor, the officer voluntarily stated, "After [the complainant] identified him [the defendant]". The trial court immediately interrupted the witness's testimony, and gave curative instructions to the jury to disregard the statement by the witness. Thus, the testimony by the officer did not constitute improper bolstering because it was not elicited by the prosecution and was stricken by the court (cf. People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471).
The defendant's further contentions with respect to the prosecutor's summation and the charge to the jury are not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05), and we decline to address them in the interest of justice in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.