Opinion
July 27, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People, we find that the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to support the defendant's conviction of the crimes charged (see, People v. Lewis, 64 N.Y.2d 1111; People v Conyers, 130 A.D.2d 677). There is no basis to disturb the jury's determination which credited the identification testimony of the victim and failed to credit the defendant's alibi defense (see, People v. Campbell, 123 A.D.2d 437, lv granted 69 N.Y.2d 878 ; People v. Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116; People v. Joyiens, 39 N.Y.2d 197). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
As there was no objection to any alleged prejudicial testimony by the police officer or the eyewitness, any issue with respect thereto was not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818). Although a witness is generally not permitted to testify as to an extrajudicial identification of the defendant's photograph (see, People v. Griffin, 29 N.Y.2d 91), the defendant opened the door for this type of inquiry during his cross-examination of the witnesses (see, People v. Brown, 62 A.D.2d 715, affd 48 N.Y.2d 921).
The defendant, having failed to object to any part of the prosecutrix's summation or to her cross-examination with respect to an alibi witness's failure to come forward, did not preserve these matters for review (see, People v. Nuccie, supra). In any event, a new trial is not warranted because of any of the claimed errors in summation or cross-examination (see, People v Roopchand, 65 N.Y.2d 837).
Finally, we find that the defendant was not prejudiced by questions regarding the dismissal of a shoplifting charge against one of the alibi witnesses as such questioning was brief and inconsequential in light of all of the evidence adduced in this case (see generally, People v. Roopchand, supra; People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Smith, 123 A.D.2d 798, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 717). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.