Opinion
December 16, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Prior to trial, the People notified the defendant that the complainant had been unable to identify him. During trial, the complainant testified, through an interpreter, that he had "identified" the defendant at the police station. However, two police officers testified that the complainant was unable to identify the defendant, and the complainant himself testified that he only saw the defendant from the back. In light of the language difficulty, it is unclear what the complainant meant by "identified", and the defendant declined to probe the complainant further to clarify what was meant. Thus, the record does not establish that such an identification was ever made. Under these circumstances, we find no violation of CPL 710.30. In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, any error in this regard was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242; People v Pinney, 136 A.D.2d 573; People v Edwards, 51 A.D.2d 807).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Harwood and Copertino, JJ., concur.