Opinion
June 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fuchs, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the testimony of the detective who conducted the lineup and arrested the defendant constituted improper bolstering is unpreserved for appellate review since no objection was made to the officer's testimony regarding the lineup (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the officer's testimony did not, either directly or inferentially, bolster the identification testimony of the complaining witness (see, People v. Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819, 821; People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471).
The defendant's claims regarding errors in the charge are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Jones, 156 A.D.2d 718; People v. Cazeau, 154 A.D.2d 611, 612). In any event, when read as a whole, the charge properly defined the concept of reasonable doubt and did not dilute the People's burden of proof (see, People v. Robinson, 195 A.D.2d 611; People v. Hudson, 168 A.D.2d 511; People v. Jones, supra; People v. Cazeau, supra; cf., Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.