Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court failed to deliver a sufficiently detailed identification charge was not preserved for appellate review, as no timely objection was registered at the trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v Beasley, 114 A.D.2d 415, 416). In any event, the record reveals that the question of the defendant's guilt hinged largely upon the credibility of the People's witnesses, and not upon the nature and quality of their observations of the defendant during the commission of the crime. Accordingly, the defendant's contention that he was entitled to a comprehensive charge on identification is lacking in merit (see, People v Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v Beasley, supra; People v Smith, 100 A.D.2d 857). Lazer, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.