Opinion
January 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that a detective's testimony improperly inferentially bolstered the complainant's identification of him (see, People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v. Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819). However, no timely objection to the detective's testimony was made. Therefore, the issue of law is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v Liccione, 50 N.Y.2d 850), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either not preserved for our review or are without merit. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.