Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the court's charge on identification was inadequate because it failed to provide the jurors with detailed instructions to assist them in evaluating the accuracy of the sole complaining witness's identification of the defendant as the perpetrator ( see, People v. Martinez, 186 A.D.2d 824; People v. Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392). Although desirable, a detailed charge on the issue of identification is not required as a matter of law ( see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v. Martinez, supra; People v Beasley, 114 A.D.2d 415, 416; People v. Smith, 100 A.D.2d 857, 858). A Justice who, as here, gives a general instruction on weighing witnesses' credibility, and who explains that identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, has accurately stated the law ( People v. Whalen, supra, at 279).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Friedmann, JJ., concur.