Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court committed reversible error in admitting testimony from two police officers that bolstered the People's principal eyewitness's identification of defendant (see generally, People v Bayron, 66 N.Y.2d 77, 81; People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471). We disagree. The officers' testimony corroborated that eyewitness's testimony and "merely served as a necessary narrative of events leading to defendant's arrest" (People v Jones, 160 A.D.2d 333, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 790; see, People v Welcome, 181 A.D.2d 628, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1055). Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting that testimony, any error is harmless in light of the strong and unequivocal identification testimony given by the eyewitness (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242; People v Lombardo, 195 A.D.2d 965, 966, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 806). Although identification was the critical issue, the eyewitness's identification was "so strong that there is no serious issue upon the point" (People v Caserta, 19 N.Y.2d 18, 21; cf., People v Wallace, 187 A.D.2d 998).