Opinion
June 20, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As a general rule, a trial witness may not testify as to the out-of-court identification of an accused by a complainant (see, People v. Bolden, 58 N.Y.2d 741, 743; see also, People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471, 477). Such testimony is hearsay, and is likely to improperly influence the jury's belief in the reliability of the identification (see, People v. Bolden, supra, at 743). Contrary to the defendant's contention, no such improper bolstering occurred here. The investigating officer testified as to the procedures employed during the lineup, and as to the questions he asked of the complainant. However, he never testified as to what the complainant said, or that the complainant had identified the defendant (see, People v Galarza, 126 A.D.2d 666; see also, People v. Lopez, 123 A.D.2d 360).
Further, the defendant's allegation that the trial court erred by denying his request for a charge on prior inconsistent statements is without merit. The general credibility instruction given by the court was sufficient (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; see also, People v. Oliphant, 201 A.D.2d 590; People v. Gamble, 182 A.D.2d 638). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.