DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
During the direct examination of the arresting detective, the prosecutor elicited testimony that the detective arrested the nontestifying codefendant at 6:15 P.M., brought him back to the police station house, and interviewed him. He and another police officer subsequently responded to a location. When the prosecutor asked what happened there, the detective responded that he arrested the defendant. Eight questions later, the prosecutor elicited from the detective that he arrested the defendant at 6:35 P.M. Such questioning was improper, as it was indicative of a deliberate attempt by the prosecutor to create in the jurors' minds the impression that the codefendant implicated the defendant (see People v. James, 289 A.D.2d 506, 507; People v. Cummings, 109 A.D.2d 748; People v. Tufano, 69 A.D.2d 826, 827).
In addition, the court erred in precluding cross-examination of the complainant regarding the length of time it took him to identify the defendant at a lineup. Where, as here, the reliability of the identification by the complainant, the sole eyewitness, was crucial at trial, such restriction on cross-examination was improper (see People v. Williamson, 79 N.Y.2d 799, 800-801; People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 247).
Under the circumstances of this case, the errors were not harmless.
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.