Opinion
August 2, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that a detective's testimony that he arrested the defendant after a final canvass of the area of the crime improperly bolstered the complainant's identification testimony (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819). However, no objection to the detective's testimony was made and the issue is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the error, if any, was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
Additionally, the defendant's claim that the prosecutor made unfair comments during summation has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). In any event, these comments were a fair response to comments made by the defendant's attorney during summation (see, People v Morgan, 136 A.D.2d 749).
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or insufficient to warrant reversal. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.