Opinion
October 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
For the same reasons as discussed in the companion case on appeal (People v. Davis, 220 A.D.2d 682 [decided herewith]), the Supreme Court properly admitted the evidence of the prior attack on the People's witness Alberto Vasquez, and his friend, the deceased Julio Hidalgo, since it showed that Vasquez had a prior opportunity to observe the defendant for the purpose of later identification (see, People v. Jamerson, 119 A.D.2d 588; People v DeLeon, 177 A.D.2d 641, 642).
The defendant's further contention that reversal is warranted due to error in the trial court's charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250; People v Price, 144 A.D.2d 1013; People v. Fisher, 112 A.D.2d 378; People v Thompson, 107 A.D.2d 772). In any event, we conclude that when viewed as a whole, the court's charge properly conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury (see, People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 831-832; People v. Fisher, 112 A.D.2d 378, supra; People v. Dee, 106 A.D.2d 582; People v. Price, 144 A.D.2d, supra, at 1014).
The sentence imposed was neither excessive nor harsh (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.