We note that resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94), and absent any showing of prejudice, the trial judge, as the trier fact, is presumed to have considered only legally competent evidence ( see Concepcion, 266 AD2d at 227). A review of the record indicates that any inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses herein does not undermine their credibility to such a degree so as to render their testimony insufficient to prove defendant's guilt ( see e.g. People v. Martinez, 179 AD2d 520, 521; People v. McCaskill, 117 AD2d 757). The inconsistencies were insufficient to render the testimony incredible as a matter of law, and merely raised credibility issues ( see People v. Davis, 299 AD2d 420, 422).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Inconsistent evidence regarding the location of the sale does not render police testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Martinez, 179 A.D.2d 520, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1004). There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. Defendant's contentions concerning uncharged crimes evidence and the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice (see, People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641). Were we to review these claims, we would find that defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial and that there is no basis for reversal (see,People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105).