Opinion
October 12, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.).
In this case where the prosecutor relied primarily upon a single eyewitness, defendant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 167 A.D.2d 326, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 957). The victim, who was robbed at gunpoint, positively identified defendant at a lineup and in court. Any inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and discrepancies between his testimony and that of another employee, who did not actually witness the robbery and were minor, were fully explored on cross-examination ( People v. Castro, 174 A.D.2d 378, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1074). We find no basis to disturb the jury's determination ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
While defendant raises the unpreserved claim that he was not permitted to refer in summation to the victim's alleged "misidentification" of the codefendant, there was no evidence of such misidentification.
Defendant also complains that the detective in this case was permitted to explain that she was assigned this case from another detective. This, however, merely provided background information useful to the jury in explaining how the detective came to work on the case ( see, People v. Casanova, 160 A.D.2d 394, 395, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 786). While the detective also stated that she had spoken with members of Manhattan Central Robbery before she was assigned this case, such testimony was stricken from the record and, in any event, did not imply that defendant committed any other robberies.
The prosecutor's comment in summation, that the detective had a job to do and that she did it, did not amount to improper bolstering but rather was a fair response to an implied attack by the defense upon the integrity of the lineup conducted by the detective ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399).
We have considered defendant's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.