Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
We agree with the defendant that the trial court erred by permitting a third party to testify as to the complainant's prior identification of the defendant as the perpetrator. The identification testimony from the complainant at trial was ambiguous, and there was no basis for the court to make a finding in accordance with CPL 60.25 that the complainant could not identify the defendant on the basis of present recollection ( see, CPL 60.25; People v. Quevas, 81 N.Y.2d 41; People v. Bayron, 66 N.Y.2d 77, 81). Nevertheless, the error in admitting this evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Jenkins, 205 A.D.2d 642; People v. Marrero, 183 A.D.2d 728).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.