Opinion
June 8, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The reduced photocopy of an arrest record of the defendant on the back of a photograph viewed by the complainant during her photographic identification of the defendant was not suggestive, as the complainant did not view the back of the photograph. Therefore, suppression of the subsequent lineup viewed by the complainant is not warranted (see, People v Mason, 123 A.D.2d 720, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 714).
Although the photograph used in that photographic identification should have been returned to the defendant pursuant to the provisions of CPL 160.50 (1) (a), the use of the photograph does not require the suppression of the complainant's identification of the defendant. The cited statute was part of a legislative package whose purpose was to remove the stigma of alleged criminal activity from an accused who was acquitted by a court or against whom the charges were dismissed and to restore the former defendant to the status he occupied before the arrest and prosecution (see, L 1976, ch 877; People v Gallina, 110 A.D.2d 847, 848; People v Anderson, 97 Misc.2d 408, 412), and was not intended to "immunize a defendant from the operations of a law enforcement official's investigatory display of a photograph" (People v London, 124 A.D.2d 254, 255, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 1001; see also, People v Anderson, supra, at 412).
Finally, the issue of the trial court's failure to give the jury an alibi charge was not preserved for appellate review and we do not reach it in the interest of justice in light of the strong evidence of the defendant's guilt and the thorough instructions given by the trial court that the defendant's guilt as to each and every element of the crimes had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Perez, 127 A.D.2d 707; People v Colon, 122 A.D.2d 151, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 810). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.