Judgment affirmed.
The defendant's claim of error, that the trial court failed to charge the jury on the issue of identification, has not been preserved for appellate review because no exception was taken to the charge at trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; cf. People v. Smith, 100 A.D.2d 857). In light of the circumstances of this case, which included strong identification testimony by a complaining witness who had known the defendant for a period of 14 years, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction. Additionally, we find that the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances of this case (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.