Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the record as a whole we conclude that the defendant received a fair trial. The testimony of the arresting officer on direct examination that the area in which the defendant was arrested was under surveillance by the police was not improper. Rather this testimony was merely background information which was not prejudicial (see, People v Armstead, 134 A.D.2d 601; cf., People v Green, 35 N.Y.2d 437). Furthermore, we find that despite the court's statement to the jury that the lineup occurred shortly after the incidents, the identification charge was an accurate statement of the law and called attention to the key factors of witness reliability and the possibility of mistake (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273; cf., People v Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.