Opinion
May 29, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his identity as the person who committed the charged offenses is without merit. While the testimony of the prosecution witnesses contained some minor inconsistencies, these discrepancies did not render their accounts incredible (see, e.g., People v. McCaskill, 144 A.D.2d 496; People v. McKenzie, 133 A.D.2d 126; People v. Mustafa, 132 A.D.2d 628). Rather, they merely created issues of weight and reliability to be resolved by the trier of fact. In view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, including the logical and generally consistent testimony of three eyewitnesses who provided unwavering identifications of the defendant and described his rather novel modus operandi, we discern no basis for disturbing the Trial Judge's resolution of these issues in the People's favor (see, e.g., People v. Bailey, 134 A.D.2d 356; People v McKay, 123 A.D.2d 887; People v. Jennings, 120 A.D.2d 546). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator and the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Mangano, P.J., Brown, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.