Opinion
November 10, 1986
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. In reviewing the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, the standard to be applied is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319; People v Giuliano, 65 N.Y.2d 766, 768; People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932).
The issues of the accuracy of identification testimony and the credibility of witnesses are clearly questions of fact to be resolved by the jury (see, People v Batts, 111 A.D.2d 761; People v Di Girolamo, 108 A.D.2d 755) whose findings should not be lightly overturned on appeal (see, People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116; People v Bussey, 111 A.D.2d 403). Given the circumstances under which the complainant viewed the defendant during the robbery, his subsequent in-court identification and the unusual physical appearance of the defendant's black beard, which contained a white spot, we find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.