Opinion
November 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert C. Hinkson, J.).
Questions raised by the discrepancies between the complainant's original physical description of defendant and his actual appearance at trial were minor and were for the jury to resolve (see, People v Carini, 139 A.D.2d 753, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 916). Defendant's claim that the testimony of a police detective improperly bolstered the complainant's identification evidence is unpreserved; and were we to reach it, we would find the detective's testimony to be harmless error in light of the complainant's strong identification of defendant and of the availability of the complainant to be cross-examined (see, People v Milburn, 19 N.Y.2d 910; People v Rodriguez, 161 A.D.2d 469, 470, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 864). The trial court's redelivery of its charge in response to the jury's request for a clarification of the difference between first and third degree robbery elicited no objection from defendant, and, in any event, cleared up any confusion on the part of the jurors (according to their response to a question from the court) and was therefore proper (see, People v Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 302).
Finally, in light of defendant's previous conviction for attempted robbery in the second degree, the sentence he received as a second violent felony offender was not excessive.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.