Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the court committed error when it failed to give an alibi charge. However, this issue is not preserved for appellate review, as defense counsel neither requested such a charge nor objected to the lack thereof (see, People v. Asquino, 128 A.D.2d 792). We decline to reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction since the focus of the asserted defense in this case was not an alibi but rather misidentification, and "the trial court's instructions, when taken as a whole, properly instructed the jury that the People bore the burden of proof as to the complicity of the defendant in the charged crimes" (People v. Asquino, supra, at 792-793; People v. Howard, 153 A.D.2d 903).
In his supplemental pro se brief, the defendant further argues that a detective who testified for the People improperly bolstered the identification testimony of two eyewitnesses to the crime (see, People v. Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v. Veal, 158 A.D.2d 633). However, this claim of improper bolstering is not preserved for appellate review, since no objection was raised to the allegedly improper testimony (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Brown, 161 A.D.2d 778). In any event, any error in this regard was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including "clear and strong proof of the defendant's identity as the perpetrator" (People v. Ray, 127 A.D.2d 859).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Flowers, 150 A.D.2d 721; People v. Bradley, 154 A.D.2d 609, 610; People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552; People v. Oliver, 108 A.D.2d 879, 880; People v Booker, 158 A.D.2d 700, 701; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.