Opinion
March 2, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the pretrial lineup was not unduly suggestive. Although an age disparity existed among the participants in the lineup, we agree with the hearing court's conclusion that this factor did not present a substantial risk of misidentification (see, People v. Gairy, 116 A.D.2d 733). Moreover, the detective's testimony regarding the description of the lineup participants did not constitute improper bolstering since his testimony was limited solely to the physical description of the lineup fillers and did not refer to the complainant's identification of the defendant (cf., People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v. Littlejohn, 72 A.D.2d 515).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit or unpreserved for review. Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.