Majority
—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.), rendered May 25, 1983, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must, defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755 , cert denied — US —, 105 S Ct 327 ; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ). Defendant was identified by the complainant who had ample opportunity to view him under good lighting conditions both before and during the commission of the crime. The complain
Defendant’s claims of error with respect to (1) the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the alibi witnesses and (2) the court’s alibi charge have not been preserved for appellate review. Reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted under the circumstances of this case (cf. People v Lediard, 80 AD2d 237 ).
We have considered defendant’s claim that his sentence is excessive and find it to be without merit. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to disturb the term of imprisonment imposed by the sentencing Judge (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ; People v Junco, 43 AD2d 266 ). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Malizia 62 NY2d 755 p. 964
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 964
- People v. Gruttola 43 NY2d 116 p. 965
- People v. Girolamo 108 AD2d 755 p. 965
- People v. Lediard 80 AD2d 237 p. 965
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 965
- People v. Junco 43 AD2d 266 p. 965