The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the People to reopen their case in order to permit the arresting officer and the complainant to make an in-court identification of the defendant. Rather, the record reveals that the trial court correctly determined that the People's failure to elicit this crucial identification testimony on direct was the product of the trial prosecutor's inexperience, and did not constitute an attempt by the People to gain an improper tactical advantage. (See, CPL 260.30; People v. Olsen, 34 N.Y.2d 349.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Smith, JJ.