Opinion
May 12, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must, the inquiry is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). The resolution of questions related to witness credibility, including that involving eyewitness identification, is a jury function which may not be lightly overturned on appeal (People v Rodriguez, 72 A.D.2d 571). We find the testimony of the eyewitnesses sufficient to support the verdicts. That there were some discrepancies between the earlier descriptions of the robber by one witness and his trial testimony only establishes a question of credibility for the jury (see, People v Bigelow, 106 A.D.2d 448; People v Stavris, 75 A.D.2d 507). In addition, the in-court identifications of the defendant made by the other two eyewitnesses some nine months after the crime without their having participated in any pretrial identification procedures in the interim were not unduly suggestive and it was for the jury to determine the weight to be accorded these identifications (see, United States v Hamilton, 469 F.2d 880, 883).
Finally, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion and we decline to substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.