Opinion
June 21, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Paul Bookson, J.
The hearing court correctly ruled that the showup at which complainant Kuykendall identified defendant, having been promptly conducted near the crime scene, was proper (People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 529). Also, the hearing court's Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into defendant's 1980 and two 1982 convictions for selling controlled substances, while prohibiting inquiry into three youthful offender adjudications, two convictions in 1972 and 1973 for trespass, and a 1976 conditional discharge conviction, was an appropriate exercise of discretion (People v Mayrant, 43 N.Y.2d 236, 239; People v. Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 176; People v. Contreras, 108 A.D.2d 627, 628). Defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's summation is largely unpreserved as a matter of law because of a failure to timely object (CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641), and, in any event, the prosecutor did not demonstrate a persistent, egregious course of conduct that was deliberate and reprehensible (People v. Sandy, 115 A.D.2d 27, 28). Similarly, defendant's claim that the officers' testimony impermissibly bolstered the complainants' identification testimony is unpreserved as a matter of law, and does not warrant review in the interests of justice. Finally, any errors were harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.