Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's summation remarks constituted a fair response to the defense counsel's summation (see, People v. Sumpter, 192 A.D.2d 628).
Additionally, the trial court's refusal to give an expanded identification charge was not error. The charge properly instructed the jury as to both the People's burden of proving identification beyond a reasonable doubt, and the general factors relevant to an evaluation of the witness's veracity and the accuracy of his observations (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v. Navallo, 186 A.D.2d 156; People v Sorrentino, 138 A.D.2d 760). While the court's charge on identification may not have been as extensive as the one suggested by the Daniels case (see, People v. Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392), it was more than "bare bones" and adequately focused the jury's attention to the necessity of carefully evaluating the identification testimony (see, People v. Martinez, 186 A.D.2d 824). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.