Opinion
May 11, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence establishing his identity as the robber beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Woodley, 178 A.D.2d 626; People v. Caballero, 177 A.D.2d 496). In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit. The record reveals that the complainant observed the defendant for several minutes during the middle of the day both before the robbery and again for up to 10 minutes during the course of the robbery itself. Further, the complainant made an unequivocal in-court identification of the defendant as the robber (see, People v. Caballero, supra). Viewing the foregoing evidence in a light most favorable to the People (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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Thompson, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.