Opinion
March 20, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the admission into evidence of a photograph from police files used to identify him created undue prejudice and constituted improper bolstering of the complainant's identification is without merit. The record reveals that defense counsel first raised the subject of the photograhic identification on cross-examination of the complaining witness. As a result, any objection to evidence regarding the pretrial photographic identifications as well as the introduction of the photographs themselves was waived (see, People v. Brown, 62 A.D.2d 715, affd 48 N.Y.2d 921; People v. Giallombardo, 128 A.D.2d 547; People v. Lyde, 104 A.D.2d 957).
We also find that the prosecutor's comments complained of by the defendant were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396) and were appropriate in view of the defendant's summation remarks (see, People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67; People v Colonna, 135 A.D.2d 724).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.