Opinion
January 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).
Since defendant did not object to any of the testimony he presently cites as "bolstering", his claims are not preserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that defendant opened the door to the introduction of negative identification testimony ( People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451; People v. Wilson, 239 A.D.2d 264) and that the officers' testimony regarding the complainant's descriptions of defendant and the police use of a canvas were properly admissible ( People v. Huertas, 75 N.Y.2d 487; People v. Morgan, 193 A.D.2d 467, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1077). The remaining testimony challenged as bolstering, even if erroneously admitted, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The prosecutor's summation comments regarding the time the defense spent discussing defendant's alibi were stricken, and it is presumed that the jury followed the court's instruction to disregard them. Since defendant expressed no dissatisfaction with the court's remedy, his present claim of error is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.