Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's generalized requests for a trial order of dismissal were not sufficiently specific to preserve for appellate review his present challenges to the sufficiency of the identification evidence (People v. Mora, 207 A.D.2d 914; see also, People v. Hart, 207 A.D.2d 805; People v. Pennisi, 207 A.D.2d 914; People v. Fields, 206 A.D.2d 490). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as one of the perpetrators of the crime. The complainant observed the defendant at close range, inside of the crowded, illuminated, subway train where the crime occurred, and unequivocally identified him in court (see, People v. Johnson, 206 A.D.2d 439; see also, People v. McNeil, 183 A.D.2d 790). Moreover, the complainant followed the defendant out of the train, immediately confronted him on the subway platform, and escorted him up the stairs where he was subsequently arrested. Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490), we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. Miller, J.P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.