Defendant failed to preserve his current claim that police testimony impermissibly bolstered the complainant's identification testimony (CPL 470.05). In any event, the police testimony that the complainant had the opportunity to view defendant after his apprehension, without stating that the witness actually made an out-of-court identification of defendant, does not constitute bolstering (People v. Forbes, 161 A.D.2d 485, 486, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 856). In light of the strong and unequivocal identification testimony of the complainant, there is no reasonable probability that the details of the lineup procedure provided by the police witnesses served to improperly enhance that testimony (supra).
Defendant's current claims of prosecutorial misconduct in summation are for the most part unpreserved by appropriate and timely objection, and in any event the challenged remarks were preceded by similar remarks by defense counsel in summation, all of which the trial court instructed were not to be considered as evidence in this case (see, People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 190). Further, when proper objections were entered they were sustained by the trial court. In all other respects, the prosecutor's summation, when viewed in the context of the defense summation, constituted appropriate response (People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912), and fair comment on the evidence presented within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.