Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the court improperly used a hypothetical in connection with its instructions on reasonable doubt relating to the witnesses' identification of the defendant, thus constituting a direct rejection of his defense of mistaken identity, and thereby depriving him of a fair trial.
The challenge to the use of the hypothetical is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Scott, 208 A.D.2d 964; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the defendant's argument lacks merit. The charge, viewed in its entirety, was unquestionably a correct statement of the law (see, People v Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817) and reserved the question of identification to the jury. Thus, there is no basis for concluding that the jury could not follow the court's instructions (see, People v Scott, supra; People v Griffith, 200 A.D.2d 760; People v Ross, 184 A.D.2d 670).
The defendant's remaining contentions regarding the supplemental charges are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, do not warrant reversal. Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.