Defendant was convicted of two December 24, 1986 robberies in which he displayed what appeared to be a gun. The complainant and another witness to the robbery recognized defendant from the neighborhood. Defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because the court did not give an alibi charge. This claim is not preserved for appellate review as defense counsel never requested an alibi charge or objected to the court's failure to give one. (CPL 470.05; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621; People v. Lester, 163 A.D.2d 201.) However, were we to reach the merits in the interests of justice, we would nonetheless conclude that while defendant introduced legally sufficient evidence to raise the defense of alibi and warrant the charge (see, People v. Jack, 74 N.Y.2d 708), the failure to give such an instruction does not warrant a reversal, inasmuch as the charge as a whole conveyed the necessary information concerning the People's burden of proof. (People v. Warren, 76 N.Y.2d 773.) Additionally, counsel's failure to request the charge did not deprive defendant of meaningful representation as his purposeful strategy at trial and on summation was to cast doubt upon the reliability of the identification testimony. (See, People v Lester, supra.)
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.