Opinion
2002-10988.
October 11, 2005.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered November 21, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Winston McIntosh of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Linda Breen, and Francis Healy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contentions that the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from a detective stating that he arrested the defendant immediately after the defendant was identified in a lineup by the complainant, and improperly asked the complainant whether he recognized the defendant in a lineup. However, we nevertheless review these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see CPL 470.15 [a]; see also People v. Pagan, 2 AD3d 879, 880).
The detective's testimony implicitly bolstered the complainant's testimony by providing official confirmation of the complainant's identification of the defendant ( see People v. Trowbridge, 305 NY 471; People v. Fields, 309 AD2d 945 and cases cited therein). A violation of the rule against bolstering may not be overlooked except where the evidence of identity is so strong that there is no serious issue upon that point ( see People v. Fields, supra). Here, the evidence that the defendant committed the crime was not so overwhelming as to render the error harmless.