Judgment affirmed.
Defendant contends that the Trial Judge committed error by refusing to give a "particularized jury charge" ( see, People v Daniels, 88 A.D.2d 392). His contention is without merit. In People v. Whalen ( 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279), the court stated: "A Judge who gives a general instruction on weighing witnesses' credibility and who states that identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt has made an accurate statement of the law. No cognizable prejudice accrues to any party." Here, too, as in People v. Smith ( 100 A.D.2d 857, 858), "the Trial Judge delivered extensive instructions emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the prosecution's burden to prove every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt and the general factors relevant to an evaluation of the credibility of witnesses". Therefore the charge was adequate.
We note that, as in the Smith case, there was present here strong circumstantial evidence linking defendant to the robbery and defense counsel's summation adequately highlighted the problem of misidentification.
Defendant next contends that under the totality of the circumstances, the showup identification was unreliable. The showup occurred on the same block as the scene of the crime, within a half hour after the crime occurred. "[S]uch prompt confirmations insure reliable identifications and aid in the prompt release of innocent suspects" ( People v. Holly, 106 A.D.2d 403, 404).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J.P., Thompson, O'Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.