Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered August 27, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that testimony elicited from a detective regarding a certain witness’s pretrial identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime constituted improper bolstering. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Speaks, 124 AD3d 689 , 692 [2015]; People v Walker, 70 AD3d 870 , 871 [2010]; People v Chandler, 59 AD3d 562 , 562 [2009]; People v Moore, 159 AD2d 521 , 522 [1990]). In any event, the testimony did not constitute improper
The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, his entitlement to a missing witness charge (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192 , 197 [2003]; People v Whitlock, 95 AD3d 909 , 910-911 [2012]; People v Greene, 87 AD3d 551 , 552 [2011]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Eng, P.J., Dillon, Chambers and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Speaks 124 AD3d 689 at 692 p. 992
- People v. Walker 70 AD3d 870 at 871 p. 992
- People v. Chandler 59 AD3d 562 at 562 p. 992
- People v. Moore 159 AD2d 521 at 522 p. 992
- People v. Rosario 100 AD3d 660 at 661 p. 993
- People v. Ragsdale 68 AD3d 897 at 898 p. 993
- People v. Savinon 100 NY2d 192 at 197 p. 993
- People v. Whitlock 95 AD3d 909 at 910-911 p. 993
- People v. Greene 87 AD3d 551 at 552 p. 993
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 993