People v. Truman (225 A.D.2d 473, 1996)

The identification procedures employed here were not unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833).

Defendant’s "inferential bolstering” claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that any "inferential bolstering” that may have occurred was rendered harmless by the overwhelming evidence of guilt (People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.