We reject defendant's claim that the identification testimony was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances surrounding both the complainant's and the police officers' identification of defendant were fully explored on cross-examination and during summation. The jury credited the identification testimony, and we discern no reason to disturb its conclusion on appeal. (People v Mosley, 112 A.D.2d 812, affd 67 N.Y.2d 985.) Furthermore, there was nothing impermissibly suggestive in connection with complainant's showup identification, which occurred 7 to 10 minutes after the commission of the crime, a short distance away from the crime scene. (People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023.)
Defendant failed to preserve for review his arguments with respect to the court's charge. In any event, we find the charge aptly stated the legal principles applicable to the case.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.