Although defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, he argues that the court erred when it failed to instruct the jury to consider specific discrepancies in the complainant's description of the defendant while giving its identification charge. Initially, we note this claim is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law in view of defendant's failure to object to the charge when given (see, CPL 470.05). Nor does the claim warrant review in the interest of justice. We note in passing that the court's expanded, three-page identification charge, which, inter alia, included an instruction that the jury weigh the reliability of a witness's testimony in light of that witness's ability to recollect and describe his assailant's "facial features, body features and clothing", was both an accurate statement of the law and sufficient (see, e.g., People v. Rodriguez, 130 A.D.2d 522, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 655).
We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be both unpreserved as a matter of law and without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.