DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's generalized request for a trial order of dismissal was not sufficiently specific to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence (see, People v. Jackson, 211 A.D.2d 686 ), or his contention that the People failed to prove his intent to commit robbery beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Hodges, 257 A.D.2d 630 ). In any event, 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 beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's identity and intent to commit robbery. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal.