Opinion
March 28, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Once the witness picked the defendant out of a group of mourners at the victim's funeral, the identification was complete. The subsequent station house viewing was consistent with good police work, to ensure that the proper person was incarcerated (see, People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262, 271-272; see also, People v. Brown, 124 A.D.2d 812, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 877; People v. Higgs, 111 A.D.2d 410). Since there was no suggestive police action, there is no need to determine whether the witness had an adequate independent source for the identification (see, People v. Floyd, 122 A.D.2d 71; People v. Jackson, 108 A.D.2d 757).
No objection was made to the alleged bolstering testimony of Detective Bostic, so the issue was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Ray, 127 A.D.2d 859, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 654). We decline to reach the issue in the interests of justice, in view of the defense attorney's extensive cross-examination on the issue. It appears that the permitting of the bolstering testimony was a calculated trial strategy on his part (see, People v. Littlejohn, 72 A.D.2d 515; cf., People v Ortiz, 120 A.D.2d 550, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 671; People v. Kwok Chan, 110 A.D.2d 158, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 920).
The defendant did not object when the rebuttal testimony was offered, and thus the issue was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the claim is without merit because the testimony went to a material issue in the case (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 288; People v Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321, 328; cf., People v. Orse, 91 A.D.2d 1003; People v. Allen, 74 A.D.2d 640).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.