Opinion
August 26, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator of the instant robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, however, we find that the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620) was legally sufficient to establish 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). Indeed, the testimony of the complainant convincingly established that the defendant, acting in concert with another, displayed a handgun and a knife during a robbery during which the complainant was able to observe the defendant for approximately six minutes under good lighting conditions and at close range. The complainant's unhesitating identification testimony was in and of itself sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction (see, People v Howard, 153 A.D.2d 903; People v Solomon, 141 A.D.2d 579, People v Blackshear, 112 A.D.2d 1044). Moreover, the minor testimonial inconsistencies of which the defendant now complains do not render the complainant's testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Colon, 161 A.D.2d 782; People v Punter, 149 A.D.2d 631). The jury heard and saw the complainant testify and thus it was entitled to favorably credit his testimony (see, People v Atilio, 155 A.D.2d 604; People v Hawkins, 155 A.D.2d 617). It was similarly free to discredit the defendant's alibi defense. The jury's determination is clearly supported by the record (see, People v Kelly, 155 A.D.2d 692; People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.