Opinion
March 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the procedure employed by the prosecutor of having his witness identify an arrest photograph of the defendant, rather than make a corporeal identification of the defendant at the trial, denied him both his due process right to a fair identification procedure, and the opportunity to confront the witness against him. Since the defendant did not raise a proper objection to the identification procedure at the trial, this issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224, remittitur amended on other grounds 37 N.Y.2d 784; People v. Seabrooks, 120 A.D.2d 691). In any event, although the photographic identification of the defendant was improper, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (cf., People v. Powell, 105 A.D.2d 712, affd 67 N.Y.2d 661).
Further, the defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.