Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his application to retain the services of an expert in the field of eyewitness identification at public expense (see, County Law § 722-c; People v. Gibbs, 157 A.D.2d 799; People v. Brown, 136 A.D.2d 1, 15-16, cert denied 488 U.S. 897; People v. Mitchell, 129 A.D.2d 589). In this regard, we note that the reliability of eyewitness identification is not a proper subject for expert testimony, as it pertains to matters of common knowledge which are not beyond the ken of lay jurors (see, People v. Gibbs, supra; People v Foulks, 143 A.D.2d 1038; People v. Slack, 131 A.D.2d 610). Further, the deficiencies alleged by the defendant with respect to the accuracy of the identifications made by the complainants were conveyed to the jury through cross-examination, counsel's argument on summation, and the court's instructions to the jury (see, People v. Gibbs, supra; People v. Foulks, supra; People v. Slack, supra).
The defendant further contends that the prosecution failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence that the complainants suffered "physical injury" as defined in Penal Law § 10.00 (9) in order to sustain his conviction of two counts of robbery in the second degree. However, as the defendant did not raise a specific objection on this ground in his motion for a trial order of dismissal the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Lyons, 154 A.D.2d 715; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the record supports the jury's finding that the complainants suffered the requisite physical injury (see, People v. Nix, 156 A.D.2d 722; People v. Grimsley, 156 A.D.2d 714; People v. Lundquist, 151 A.D.2d 505).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.