Opinion
May 13, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that reversible error took place due to the Supreme Court's ruling that the complainant, who prior to trial had been unable to render a positive identification of the defendant, would be permitted to make an in-court identification. However, the defendant's contention is without merit because in such instances defense counsel is able to explore before the jury any weakness or suggestiveness in the identification procedure ( see, People v. Medina, 208 A.D.2d 771; People v. Jackson, 167 A.D.2d 420). The complainant's prior failure to positively identify the defendant in a photographic array related to the weight, and not the admissibility, of the identification testimony ( see, People v. Finley, 190 A.D.2d 859).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.