Defendant's conviction was not against the weight of the evidence. (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490.) Defendant's guilt of the robbery of the bar was amply established by the in-court and lineup identifications made by the bartender, who had ample opportunity to view him. Although the bartender did identify the photograph of another person as a possible suspect shortly after the robbery, his later identifications of defendant were unequivocal. Defendant was also tied to the robbery by the missing water gun, which the police recovered at the time of defendant's arrest.
The redirect examination of the bartender was not overly broad (People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445). Any possible prejudice to defendant on account of a comment by the prosecutor in summation (to the effect that defendant should have produced the photograph of the person identified by the bartender as a possible suspect) was cured by the court's prompt intervention and curative instructions. (People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.