Opinion
December 1, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly found that two of the identifying witnesses had independent sources for their respective identifications. Each witness viewed the defendant under well-lit conditions for a few minutes while the defendant was robbing them ( see, People v. Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 631).
The defendant's contention that the jury charge deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Cadorette, 56 N.Y.2d 1007, 1009). In any event, when viewed in its entirety, the charge delivered by the court explained the concepts of reasonable doubt and the People's burden of proof and made it clear that the defendant bore no burden ( see, People v. Toribio, 240 A.D.2d 519). The court's statement to the effect that the jury should not hide behind the concept of reasonable doubt to avoid an unpleasant task neither shifted the burden to the defendant nor diluted the People's burden of proof ( see, People v. Toribio, supra).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.