Opinion
June 27, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the trial court properly received into evidence the complainants' testimony on rebuttal that Rodney Jordan, whose photograph they were shown in a police photographic array, was not a participant in the robberies. The defendant, in his direct testimony, opened the door for the introduction of such evidence by testifying to circumstances which implicated Jordan as the assailant (see, People v Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, cert denied 460 U.S. 1047; cf., People v McCann, 90 A.D.2d 554).
The police officer's testimony as to the complainants' lineup identifications amounted to inferential bolstering and was improperly received into evidence (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v Grate, 122 A.D.2d 853, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1000). However, the issue was not preserved for appellate review as no objection was raised with respect to such testimony. In any event, the error was harmless given the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt based upon the positive identifications made by all four complainants (CPL 470.05; People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584; People v Robertson, 128 A.D.2d 815, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 754; People v Grate, supra, at 853-854).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.