| People v Brown |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05894 [120 AD3d 710] |
| August 20, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Timothy Brown, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of counsel), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, EllenC. Abbot, and Ushir Pandit of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kohm, J.), rendered May 26, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree andcriminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the testimony of a police detective impermissiblybolstered (see People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471 [1953]) the pretrialidentification testimony are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Tavarez, 55AD3d 932 [2008]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Totesau, 112AD3d 977, 978 [2013]; People v Lassiter, 74 AD3d 1094 [2010]; People vMoore, 159 AD2d 521 [1990]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the SupremeCourt improperly permitted a police detective to testify that, in his opinion, an individualdepicted in a surveillance video tape was the defendant (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dubois, 116 AD3d878 [2014]; People vAlleyne, 114 AD3d 804, 804 [2014]). In any event, the contention is withoutmerit (see People v Alleyne, 114 AD3d at 804; People v Ruiz, 7 AD3d737 [2004]; People vMagin, 1 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2003]).
Moreover, the defendant's contention that trial counsel's failure to preserve certainclaims for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit(see People v Stultz, 2NY3d 277, 287 [2004]; People v Bedford, 95 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2012]; People v Archer, 82 AD3d781 [2011]; People vGreenlee, 70 AD3d 966 [2010]; People v Taberas, 60 AD3d 791 [2009]; People v Hyatt, 2 AD3d749 [2003]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.