Defendant failed to object to any of the testimony he now claims constituted improper hearsay and bolstering, and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05). In any event, the repetitive testimony of the complainant regarding her observations of defendant was for the most part elicited by defendant in an attempt to question the accuracy of those observations, and did not constitute hearsay (People v Candelario, 156 A.D.2d 191, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 964). Additionally, the testimony of the arresting officer that he arrested defendant when the complainant pointed him out on the street, was admissible to complete the narrative of events leading to defendant's arrest five days after the robbery (People v Jones, 69 N.Y.2d 853, affg 118 A.D.2d 86, 94). In light of the overwhelming nature of the evidence of defendant's guilt, including the complainant's strong identification testimony and defendant's signed confession, it is improbable that the officer's testimony served to improperly bolster the complainant's identification of defendant as the robber in this non-jury trial (People v Nunez, 162 A.D.2d 298, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 862).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Kassal, JJ.