Opinion
January 20, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, amply supports the conclusion that a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). All the evidence was before the jury, which was entitled to resolve any questions of credibility (see, People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932).
Moreover, the sentence imposed evinces neither an abuse of discretion nor a failure to observe sentencing principles on the part of the sentencing Judge (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86-87).
We have considered the contentions raised by the defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and find them either to be without merit or unpreserved for our review. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.