Opinion
October 25, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's remarks and questioning during cross-examination and by his summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953), are without merit (see, People v. Chaitin, 61 N.Y.2d 683, 684; People v. Fanfair, 176 A.D.2d 958; People v. Shuff, 168 A.D.2d 348), or involve harmless error (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant also contends that the court's charge as to identification was inadequate. We disagree. A trial court need not give a fact specific charge as to identification but may give a general instruction on weighing credibility and state that the identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the People (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v Nichols, 191 A.D.2d 518).
We find that the defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.