Opinion
May 23, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly allowed the complainant to describe the perpetrator's appearance at the time of the crime. The complainant's recollection of the perpetrator's appearance during the gunpoint robbery was relevant to the issue of identification and did not constitute improper bolstering of his identification of the defendant in court (see, People v Sanders, 108 A.D.2d 316, affd 66 N.Y.2d 906; People v Riviello, 111 A.D.2d 878, 879).
Furthermore, although the prosecutor should not have inquired as to the description which the robbery victim gave to the police, this single isolated question did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and a new trial is not warranted (see, People v Osuna, 65 N.Y.2d 822; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.