The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request to introduce expert testimony concerning eyewitness identification (see People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157). The record does not support defendant's assertion that the court failed to exercise its discretion. We note that even without expert testimony, defendant was able to attack thoroughly the People's identification testimony through cross-examination and summation arguments.
Although an expanded identification charge would have been the better practice, we find no basis for reversal in this regard because the court sufficiently instructed the jury on the subject of identification (see People v. Knight, 87 N.Y.2d 873; People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 278-279).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.