Opinion
April 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J.).
The court's charge with respect to identification testimony was legally correct and balanced and directly tracked the language of the Criminal Jury Instructions (1 CJI[NY] 10.20, part B). The prosecutor's comments on summation were a fair response to defense counsel's summation and within the permissible bounds of rhetorical comment (People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.