Opinion
December 4, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.).
There was an independent source for the complainants' in-court identification of defendant, based on their ability to observe him for five minutes, in a well-lit area, while he stood about two feet away from them ( see, People v. Santos, 202 A.D.2d 258, 259, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 1007). Defendant's claims regarding the line-up identification are without merit.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Factual issues concerning the reliability of the identification testimony were properly presented to the jury ( see, People v. Horonzy, 177 A.D.2d 254, 255, affd 81 N.Y.2d 853; People v. Quevedo, 156 A.D.2d 265, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 870), and we see no reason to disturb its verdict.
Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the court's instruction regarding identification and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the court's charge sufficiently apprised the jury of the proper standards ( see, People v. Knight, 87 N.Y.2d 873).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.