Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err in refusing to give the requested " Daniels-type" charge on identification (see, People v Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392; 1 CJI[NY] 10.01 part A). Because the defendant was known to the two witnesses that identified him at trial, the question of the defendant's guilt turned on the credibility of those witnesses and not upon the accuracy of their observations of the defendant during the commission of the crime (see, People v Wade, 146 A.D.2d 589; People v Blake, 124 A.D.2d 666; People v Derhi, 110 A.D.2d 709). Thus, the court was required to give only a general instruction on weighing the witnesses' credibility and to state that identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273; People v Beasley, 114 A.D.2d 415). The court did this and more. Indeed, the charge delivered was identical to the expansive identification charge requested, with two modifications which did not change its meaning or import.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Eiber, JJ., concur.