Opinion
October 15, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The determination by the hearing court that the complainants' in-court identifications of the defendant derived from a source independent of the suggestive photo array (see, People v. Ryan, supra) they viewed prior to trial is amply supported by the evidence adduced at the independent source hearing (see, People v. Androvett, 135 A.D.2d 640; People v. Washington, 111 A.D.2d 418). Moreover, although the hearing court may have improperly curtailed defense counsel's questioning regarding the manner in which the pretrial identification procedure was conducted (see, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241), the record contains sufficient evidence regarding the conduct of that procedure upon which to make an informed determination.
With respect to the conduct of the trial, the detective's testimony to the effect that the defendant became a suspect after he spoke with the complainants constitutes inferential bolstering, and should not have been admitted (see, People v Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819, 821). However, under the circumstances of this case we conclude that this error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Holt, supra; People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.