People v. Gibson

179 A.D.2d 567, 579 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 734

Opinion

Although the detective who arrested defendant should not have been permitted to testify that the arrest was made after a conversation with an eyewitness (People v Holt, 67 NY2d 819, 821), this testimony did not bolster the testimony of a second eyewitness to the robbery, who, like the first victim, said that defendant had previously made purchases in his store. Nor did it bolster the identification testimony of a third victim, who had been twice robbed by defendant in unrelated incidents, and who identified defendant at a lineup. Clearly, the Trowbridge error was harmless (see, People v Burgess, 66 AD2d 667).

Defendant’s remaining claims are unpreserved or meritless. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.