Opinion
October 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that the trial court failed to properly charge the jury on the issue of identification is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. James, 177 A.D.2d 595; People v. Hesterbey, 134 A.D.2d 615). In any event, the trial court's charge was adequate under the circumstances of this case. The court instructed the jurors on evaluating the credibility of the witnesses and advised them that the People had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who had committed the crime (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273; People v. Moore, 185 A.D.2d 251; People v. Salaam, 172 A.D.2d 860).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.