Opinion
February 1, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's claim that his right to a fair trial was compromised by the trial court's ruling that a witness who had not participated in any pretrial identification proceedings would be permitted to make an in-court identification of him. The trial court rejected the defendant's arguments that preclusion of the identification was the only appropriate remedy and presented him with several alternative procedures. The defendant nevertheless adhered to his preclusion argument and opted for the traditional in-court identification. The defendant's rejection of the court's suggestions appears to have been a strategic maneuver designed to foster his misidentification argument to the jury. Indeed, the defense counsel thoroughly explored the weaknesses in the witness's testimony during cross-examination and presented those issues to the jury during his summation (see, People v Samuels, 133 A.D.2d 785; People v Simpson, 125 A.D.2d 347, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 886). The defendant should not, therefore, now be heard to complain about his choice. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.