Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the testimony of a police detective improperly bolstered the prior identification of the defendant by certain eyewitnesses, in violation of the principles enunciated in People v Trowbridge ( 305 NY 471), is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v West, 56 NY2d 662, 663; see also People v Melendez, 51 AD3d 1040, 1041). In any event, the contention is without merit. The detective's testimony did not have a bolstering effect because he did not refer to the witnesses's identification of the defendant ( see People v Moore, 159 AD2d 521, 522; People v Middleton, 128 AD2d 554).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 176-178; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05) and, in any event, are without merit.