| People v Capehart |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01661 [60 AD3d 689] |
| March 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| 65—The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Capehart, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Cooperman, J.), rendered November 16, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree(two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that a detective's testimony implicitly bolstered the complainant'sprior identification of the defendant in a lineup is unpreserved for appellate review, as thedefendant failed to object at trial to the testimony that he now claims was improper (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Moore,49 AD3d 901 [2008]; People vSealy, 35 AD3d 510 [2006]). In any event, any implicit bolstering that occurred washarmless. Evidence of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, was overwhelming,and the strong and positive identification testimony in this case precludes any significantprobability that, but for the error, the jury would have acquitted the defendant (see People vJohnson, 57 NY2d 969, 970 [1982]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242[1975]; People v Moore, 49 AD3d at 902; People v Sealy, 35 AD3d at 511; People v Cruz, 31 AD3d 660, 661[2006]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson andLeventhal, JJ., concur.