Filed Date: 10/1/2002
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Judgment, Supreme
Testimony by a detective concerning a testifying eyewitness’s description of defendant was properly admitted to explain police action (see People v Parris, 247 AD2d 221, lv denied 91 NY2d 944). In any event, were we to find this testimony to be improper bolstering, we would find the error to be harmless in view of the strength of the identification testimony (see People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969).
We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Williams, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.