Judgment affirmed.
The defendant did not request that counsel be present at the investigatory lineup. Therefore, it was not error to conduct such lineup without counsel being present, even though the detective was aware that defendant had an unrelated criminal matter pending upon which he was represented by counsel (see, People v Hawkins, 55 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 459 U.S. 846; People v Earley, 118 A.D.2d 868; People v Robertson, 109 A.D.2d 806). Although the detective's trial testimony regarding the lineup constituted improper bolstering (see, People v Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819) there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant in the absence of his testimony (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932). Weinstein, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.