Opinion
November 18, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.).
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 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied ___ US ___, 105 S Ct 327; People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 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 complainant, who had described defendant, inter alia, as a black male, about an inch taller than herself, with big lips and scars on his face, unequivocally identified defendant as the perpetrator at a lineup and at trial. Although defendant presented an alibi defense, the alibi witnesses gave inconsistent accounts of defendant's activities on the day in question. Furthermore, any issues of credibility were matters for the jury to determine (People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116; People v Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 1133).
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 A.D.2d 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 A.D.2d 80; People v Junco, 43 A.D.2d 266). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.