Opinion
January 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress the lineup identification testimony of the complainant. The court's determination that the challenged lineup was fair and nonsuggestive is supported by the record, and we perceive no basis for disturbing that conclusion (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759; People v. Gairy, 116 A.D.2d 733). In any event, we note there was an independent basis for the in-court identification of the defendant (see, e.g., People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241; People v. Friday, 114 A.D.2d 970).
Furthermore, we find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the testimony of a police officer impermissibly bolstered the identification testimony of the complainant in violation of People v. Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471). The record reveals that the officer's testimony neither explicitly nor inferentially bolstered the complainant's account of her identification of the defendant from the lineup (see, People v. Lopez, 123 A.D.2d 360). Moreover, the statements of the officer concerning the identification procedure were properly elicited to rebut defense counsel's earlier attack on the fairness of the lineup (see, People v. Gilley, 91 A.D.2d 1073; People v. Singletary, 54 A.D.2d 767).
The defendant has failed to preserve his remaining contention for appellate review (see, People v. West, 56 N.Y.2d 662; People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, cert denied 456 U.S. 1010), nor do we find that reversal is warranted in the interest of justice. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.