Opinion
February 18, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Although there were certain discrepancies between the complainant's identification testimony and prior statements he made to the police, questions as to the credibility of a witness are for the trier of the facts to resolve (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116; People v. Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 1133).
A review of the record demonstrates that the police arrested the defendant only after the complainant spontaneously identified him as one of the perpetrators of a robbery which had occurred 10 days earlier; thus there was probable cause to make the arrest and no suggestiveness with respect to the identification itself (see, People v. Gonzalez, 61 A.D.2d 666, affd 46 N.Y.2d 1011).
Further, we find that the defendant's trial attorney provided "meaningful representation" under the totality of circumstances so as to satisfy the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). There is nothing in the record to indicate that there were any alibi witnesses available to the defendant; therefore counsel did not have a reasonable basis to present such a defense and cannot be criticized for the failure to do so (see, People v. Ford, 46 N.Y.2d 1021; People v. Lane, 101 A.D.2d 925, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1047). Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.