Opinion
December 28, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the hearing court's determination is without merit. The pretrial photographic identification procedures employed by law enforcement officials were not so "impermissibly suggestive" as to have given rise to a "`very substantial likelihood of * * * misidentification'" (Manson v Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 107, 116; United States v Wade, 388 U.S. 218).
Moreover, to the extent that the defendant's claim is directed toward the reliability or accuracy of the untainted in-court identifications, such is not the proper subject of a suppression hearing since the court is not required to make "a threshold inquiry into the reliability of [such] identification testimony" (People v Reeves, 120 A.D.2d 621, 622, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 715). Rather, the reliability of untainted in-court identification testimony "presents an issue of fact for jury resolution" (People v Dukes, 97 A.D.2d 445; see, People v Ganci, 27 N.Y.2d 418, 429, cert denied 402 U.S. 924).
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial due to several remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing statements. Although these remarks may have been improper, any objections asserted were sustained and the court promptly issued curative instructions which were sufficient to dispel whatever prejudicial effect those remarks may have had (see, People v Jones, 120 A.D.2d 747; People v Walters, 116 A.D.2d 757, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 891). Moreover, the cumulative effect of the comments was not so prejudicial as to have compromised the defendant's right to a fair trial (see, People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
Finally, the defendant's claim that the trial court's directive not permitting entry to or egress from the courtroom during the jury charge deprived him of his right to a public trial is unpreserved for review and is, in any event, without merit. The court properly exercised its discretion in an effort to insure that any possible distraction for the jurors in the course of the charge be averted (see, People v Zenger, 134 A.D.2d 640).
We have examined the remainder of the contentions asserted by the defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and find them to be either unpreserved for our review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.