Opinion
May 4, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court failed to give a proper charge on the issue of identification is not preserved for appellate review since no exception was taken to the charge on that ground (People v. Monroig, 111 A.D.2d 935, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 921). The circumstances present in this case do not warrant a reversal in the interest of justice. The court's charge included instructions on evaluating the credibility of witnesses and advised the jury that the People had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who committed the crime. The charge, though minimal, was technically correct (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273). Even if the charge were insufficient, a new trial would not be warranted because the evidence offered at trial did not present a close identification question nor did the defendant raise an alibi defense (cf., People v. Ramirez, 128 A.D.2d 734; People v. Jones, 108 A.D.2d 824). Here, the defendant, in statements to the police, did not contradict the testimony of three eyewitnesses that he was involved in the shooting but instead claimed that it was accidental.
The defendant's contentions with regard to the prosecutor's summation are not preserved for our review. Defense counsel failed to object to one of the alleged improper comments (see, People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818). The trial court sustained the defense counsel's objection to the prosecutor's other comments and no curative instructions were requested (see, People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). The defendant's remaining contention that his sentence is excessive is without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.