While the victim was unable to observe defendant's face during the robbery, her positive identification of his build, stature and clothing constituted sufficient proof of identity as a matter of law (Matter of Ryan W., 143 A.D.2d 435, 437; People v Spinks, 37 A.D.2d 424). Indeed, the defendant was apprehended within minutes of the crime, in close proximity thereto and in possession of complainant's camera.
The arresting officer's testimony corroborated the victim's testimony and "merely served as a necessary narrative of events leading to defendant's arrest" (People v Jones, 160 A.D.2d 333); it did not constitute impermissible "bolstering" within the meaning of People v Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471). In any event, defendant's bolstering argument is not preserved for review (People v Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947; People v Bolling, 166 A.D.2d 203, lv granted 77 N.Y.2d 836), but, even if it were, and assuming it to be meritorious, the evidence was more than sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without the victim's in-court identification (People v Williams, 156 A.D.2d 302).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.