Opinion
December 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's charge on the issue of identification was adequate under the circumstances of this case. The court instructed the jury that identification had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and provided the jury with general instructions in weighing a witness's credibility (see, People v Thompson, 202 A.D.2d 456).
Further, the defendant's contentions regarding improper bolstering testimony are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Chambers, 191 A.D.2d 1031) and, in any event, any error was harmless (see, People v Oakley, 208 A.D.2d 866; People v Claitt, 196 A.D.2d 505).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.