Opinion
December 18, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On January 29, 1987, a man tried to rob the complainant in the elevator of her apartment complex. Three days later, the complainant saw the defendant walking on the street and identified him to the police as the perpetrator. At that point, the identification process was complete (see, People v Kelley, 144 A.D.2d 386; People v Banks, 143 A.D.2d 677; People v James, 138 A.D.2d 744). The complainant's station house viewings, therefore, were consistent with good police procedure to ensure that the proper person was arrested, and were merely confirmatory (see, People v Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262, 272; cf., People v Lorick, 142 A.D.2d 501, appeal withdrawn 73 N.Y.2d 785).
The defendant's contention that a witness's testimony that the complainant was "hysterical" when she saw the defendant constituted improper bolstering has not been preserved for appellate review since he failed to make any objection when the testimony was given (see, CPL 470.05; People v West, 56 N.Y.2d 662, 663; People v Foster, 143 A.D.2d 767, 768; People v McCorkle, 119 A.D.2d 700, 701). Moreover, review in the interest of justice is not warranted in this case since the defendant underscored the complainant's alleged hysteria in arguing to the jury that her identification was rendered unreliable thereby (see, CPL 470.15; People v Cruz, 144 A.D.2d 686, 688).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.