Opinion
April 26, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The People presented rebuttal testimony that identified the defendant from the photograph and videotape entered into evidence by the defendant. Though this rebuttal testimony was not technically rebuttal as it did not go to disprove the affirmative fact offered by the defendant that he had a different haircut at the time of the commission of the crime than he did at trial (see, People v Harris, 84 A.D.2d 63, affd 57 N.Y.2d 335, cert denied 460 U.S. 1047), it was nevertheless proper to admit it in the interest of justice as the matter of identification was a crucial issue and the rebuttal did not cause any undue prejudice to the defendant (see, CPL 260.30; People v Medina, 130 A.D.2d 515). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.