Opinion
March 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously gave an expanded identification charge at trial. We find that the charge as a whole could not have confused the jury as to the differing theories advanced by defendant and the People. The court in its charge instructed the jury as to credibility and the defendant's contention that the officers' testimony was not credible (see, People v. Corchado, 166 A.D.2d 279).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.