Opinion
October 15, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J., Balbach, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, we find that the proof adduced at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict (People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). Although certain inconsistencies appear in the testimony of the witnesses, the resolution of credibility was for the trier of fact (People v Andrews, 112 A.D.2d 1002; People v La Borde, 76 A.D.2d 869).
The hearing court properly denied that branch of defendant's pretrial motion which sought suppression of identification testimony. The complaining witness who identified defendant had an independent basis for her in-court identification (see, People v Smalls, 112 A.D.2d 173; People v Smallwood, 99 A.D.2d 819).
Further, we reject the contention that defendant was deprived of a fair trial as a result of comments made during the People's summation and find no merit to the contention that defendant was deprived of meaningful representation of counsel.
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances (People v Lindo, 112 A.D.2d 386).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.