According to the People, defendant pulled a sheer woman's stocking over his head in the course of committing an armed robbery of an ice cream store. While two of those present were unable to identify defendant, the other two witnesses, both of whom picked defendant out of separate lineups, testified that defendant's features were visible through the stocking. This was sufficient to establish defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant failed to preserve any objection to the court's no adverse inference charge (People v Cruz, 171 A.D.2d 607, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 921), and we decline to reach the issue. Were we to review the issue in the interest of justice, we would affirm, since the charge as given did not suggest that defendant had any obligation to testify (People v Coe, 165 A.D.2d 721, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 984).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.