Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the hearing court's Wade ruling is without merit. The record contains insufficient evidence that one of the complaining witnesses, prior to viewing the lineup, had been informed by the investigating officer that one of the alleged perpetrators had been placed therein. Under the totality of the circumstances the lineup identification procedure possessed sufficient indicia of reliability to warrant the admission of testimony concerning it into evidence (see, Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106; People v. Rodriguez, 64 N.Y.2d 738; People v. Scott, 124 A.D.2d 684, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 833).
We note that the defendant's pro se argument that the trial court failed to give an adequate identification charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. McKenzie, 67 N.Y.2d 695, 697; People v. Cadorette, 56 N.Y.2d 1007; People v. Reyes, 127 A.D.2d 617, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 954). In any event, the identification charge given to the jury properly conveyed the People's burden to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt and sufficiently detailed the general factors relevant to an evaluation of the accuracy and credibility of the witnesses (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v. Robertson, 128 A.D.2d 815, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 754; People v. Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392, 400-401).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.