Opinion
May 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Jeffrey Atlas, J., Clifford Scott, J.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), and giving due deference to the jury's findings of credibility (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490), we find that the defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence.
The trial court properly received into evidence a copy of the lineup form to clarify confusing testimony as to whether the lineup witness had selected the third person from the left or the third person from the right. Under the circumstances, the lineup form gave the jury an effective tool for assessing the weight and credibility of the identification testimony (People v Viruet, 171 A.D.2d 490). This document does not constitute improper bolstering of the identification testimony, since it does not amount to another witness testifying to the fact of a complainant's out-of-court identification of the defendant (compare, People v Bonnet, 134 A.D.2d 436, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 953).
The defendant's arguments with respect to the trial court's charge on intent and note-taking by the jury are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to raise any objection at trial (CPL 470.05), and we decline to consider them in the interest of justice.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining arguments, including those raised in the defendant's pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit as well.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.