Opinion
May 1, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The police officers' testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the defendant's apprehension could have been interpreted by the jury as a confirmation of his identification by the complainant (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v Grate, 122 A.D.2d 853, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1000). However, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review since no objection was raised to such testimony (CPL 470.05). In any event, considering the clear and strong identification testimony and the lack of probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant in the absence of the improper testimony, the bolstering error was harmless (see, People v Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584; People v Jenkins, 133 A.D.2d 279, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 875).
Viewing the court's charge as a whole, the jury was properly instructed concerning the rules to be applied in arriving at its verdict (see, People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847; People v Quinones, 123 A.D.2d 793, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 749).
Finally, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.