Opinion
February 3, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Kennedy, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Two police officers testified at defendant's trial on charges of robbery and grand larceny that shortly after the crimes were committed the complainant gave them the name of one of the perpetrators. The police did not state the name that was given. Subsequently, the complainant testified that when interviewed by the police, he described defendant and identified him as "Larry".
Defendant argues that the testimony of the police officers inferentially bolstered the complainant's identification of defendant (see, People v Hall, 82 A.D.2d 838, 839; see also, People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471). The error, if any, in receiving the police testimony does not require a reversal. Even if we were to characterize the police testimony as bolstering, we would view the error as harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). The complainant had known defendant as "Larry" for at least 12 years and his identification testimony was compelling.
We have reviewed defendant's other claims of error and find them to be without merit.