Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The issue of the alleged bolstering testimony elicited from police witnesses at trial has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, although there was error, it was harmless in light of the identification evidence produced at trial (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v. Williams, 109 A.D.2d 906; cf. People v. Green, 104 A.D.2d 451, 452). Because of the overwhelming evidence of identity, the court's identification charge, although not as detailed as the defense requested, was proper as it provided an accurate statement of the law (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v. Beasley, 114 A.D.2d 415, 416; People v. Smith, 100 A.D.2d 857, 858).
Finally, it was proper for the court to permit the prosecutor to elicit direct testimony of a witness through leading questions. The record indicates that the witness was an unwilling one and that there was little danger of her acquiescing in the prosecutor's suggestions as to the perpetrator's identity, since she had known the defendant prior to the incident (see generally, McCormick, Evidence § 6, at 11-12 [3d ed]). Rubin, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.