Opinion
March 18, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.).
Judgments affirmed.
On the instant appeals, defendant argues that the failure of complainant to make an in-court identification, notwithstanding his prior lineup identification, creates a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. During the trial, an officer testified that he was present when complainant made a lineup identification. Such testimony is permissible (CPL 60.25; People v. Lagana, 36 N.Y.2d 71, 74, cert denied 424 U.S. 942). Defendant further argues that his age, 17, coupled with his intelligence and family background, was sufficient to accord him youthful offender treatment. The granting of youthful offender treatment lies within the discretion of the court ( People v. Williams, 78 A.D.2d 642). Finally, it is urged that the allocutions during defendant's guilty pleas were inadequate. It should also be noted that the issue urged was not raised in the court of first instance by way of a motion to withdraw the pleas or to vacate the judgments. Therefore, it has not been preserved for review ( see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636). In any event, a complete allocution recitation is not a prerequisite for a plea, if the record demonstrates that it was knowingly and voluntarily entered, with competent assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 16-17). Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.