DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was prejudiced by the prosecution's delay in producing Rosario material (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866) is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to move for a mistrial or to request any other sanction on this ground (see, People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027; People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843, 844). In any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56). The material was produced before the defendant's counsel cross-examined the prosecution's first witness, and his counsel was granted a recess to review it (see, People v. Bostic, 258 A.D.2d 467, 468; People v. Mann, 216 A.D.2d 796, 801).
In general, a witness may not testify concerning a previous identification of a defendant from photographs (see, People v. Cioffi, 1 N.Y.2d 70, 73; People v. Green, 143 A.D.2d 768, 770; People v. Grate, 122 A.D.2d 853, 854). However, such testimony is permitted when the defendant opens the door to this line of inquiry (see, People v. Bolden, 58 N.Y.2d 741; People v. Grate, supra). The defendant's counsel asked the complainant if she was shown a single photograph of the defendant just before she viewed the lineup, thereby permitting the prosecutor to demonstrate the fairness of the identification procedure (see, People v. Almonte, 135 A.D.2d 824; People v. Grate, supra). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the subsequent testimony of a detective was not improper bolstering, as he did not confirm the complainant`s identification of the defendant (see, People v. Middleton, 128 A.D.2d 554; People v. Lopez, 123 A.D.2d 360; cf., People v. Grate, supra).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.