Opinion
January 18, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, 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 was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant had an ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the robbery, and made an unequivocal identification of the defendant at trial (see, People v. McNeil, 183 A.D.2d 790; People v. Caballero, 177 A.D.2d 496). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that he was unduly prejudiced by police testimony that he was arrested subsequent to the lineup. The error, if any (compare, People v Veal, 158 A.D.2d 633, 634, with People v. Chisholm, 174 A.D.2d 629, 630), was harmless (see, People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v. Hawthorne, 175 A.D.2d 880, 881, mod 80 N.Y.2d 873).
The defendant's challenge to the jury instructions is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, supra), and, in any event, is without merit, since the charge as a whole properly instructed the jury regarding the burden of proof and presumption of innocence (see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817; People v Jones, 173 A.D.2d 487). Ritter, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.