Defendant claims that the testimony of the arresting officer improperly bolstered the identification testimony of the eyewitness, and that this error, combined with the prosecutor's reference to the bolstering testimony during summation and the court's charge, requires reversal. These claims are unpreserved as a matter of law, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review we would affirm. While bolstering is impermissible, it does not in itself constitute reversible error where "[t]he identification was strong, positive, and made within minutes after the crime." (People v Burgess, 66 A.D.2d 667, 668.) Here, the eyewitness observed defendant during the crime and afterwards as defendant passed by his car and walked away, and identified defendant only minutes after the crime occurred. Therefore, the bolstering testimony and reference thereto in summation if error was harmless (People v Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584).
We have considered defendant's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.