Opinion
May 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to establish, at a hearing, probable cause for his arrest, is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859; People v Colavito, 70 N.Y.2d 996; People v. Feliciano, 185 A.D.2d 359, 360; People v. Farinaro, 110 A.D.2d 653, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 815). We find no improvident exercise of discretion in the decision of the Supreme Court, sua sponte, to reopen the hearing after the People rested (see, People v. Corso, 135 A.D.2d 551, 552; People v. Lanthrop, 127 A.D.2d 1003). The Supreme Court properly determined that the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive.
The defendant's arguments regarding the prosecutor's summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). With respect to those comments which were preserved for appellate review, we find that they were either based on the evidence at trial or were made in fair response to the defense counsel's summation, which suggested that the complainant fabricated his testimony, tailored it to that of a police officer, and invoked a language barrier when asked questions which favored the defendant (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Sykes, 151 A.D.2d 523, 524; People v. Boyajian, 148 A.D.2d 740). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.