Opinion
March 1, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a Wade hearing is without merit. Since there was no identification procedure conducted by the police, no preliminary hearing was required ( see, People v. Henry, 130 A.D.2d 508; People v. Rios, 156 A.D.2d 397; People v. Robinson, 117 A.D.2d 826).
The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a new trial because of the trial court's improper charge to the jury on the presumption of innocence is not preserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Williams, 226 A.D.2d 406; People v. Cahill, 220 A.D.2d 608). In any event, the defendant's argument is without merit. The trial court properly instructed the jury in detail that the prosecution had the burden of proving each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the presumption of innocence only ceases if and when the jury determines that the defendant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Although it would have been more prudent to instruct the jury that a defendant is presumed innocent "unless" his or her guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt rather than "until", the charge, considered as a whole, conveyed the proper standards ( see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817; People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830; People v. Custodio, 243 A.D.2d 576; People v. Cahill, supra; People v. Actie, 215 A.D.2d 570).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Miller, J. P., Ritter, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.